Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 101 CRICKET LANE 4/30/2018�Q p�� Gt�aR ��a �_ f Page 1 of 2 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:28 AM To: 'Wtmatt@aol.com' Subject: FW: Request for copies - 101 Cricket Lane Importance: High Mr. Matt: It has been quite a long time since you first requested a copy of this file. Please let me know when you will be picking it up. I understand from Dover Press that you paid for the copies directly last week. Your soonest response is appreciated. Pamela Health Dept. Assistant 978.688.9540 -----Original Message ----- From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:13 AM To: 'Wtmatt@aol.com' Subject: FW: Request for copies - 101 Cricket Lane Importance: High -----Original Message ----- From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:11 AM To: 'Wtmatt@aol.com' Subject: RE: Request for copies - 101 Cricket Lane Importance: High Hello, The copy of the file is all set. Please make your check payable to Dover Press, 42 Second Street, North Andover, MA 01845 in the amount of $79.20. You may bring the payment to me to provide to Dover Press when you come to pick up the copy of the file. Thank you. Pamela Health Dept. Assistant 978.688.9540 -----Original Message ----- From: Wtmatt@aol.com [mailto:Wtmatt@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:20 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Cc: SethSal@aol.com Subject: Re: Request for copies Pam, As I discussed with you yesterday, Please reproduce the 101 Cricket Street Board of Heath file. 5/20/2008 Page 2 of 2 Please contact me when the file is ready to be picked up. Thank you, Bill Matt Seth Salinger Law Office 53 Langley Road Newton, MA 02459 t. (617) 244-7630 f. (617) 244-7640 c. (617) 293-5715 Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the -Video on AOL Living._ 5/20/2008 CPDOVER PRESS 4L 42 Second Street Korth Andover, Mass. 01845 r Town of North Andover Health Department 1600 Osgood St. N. Andover, MA 01845 681-0922 DATE 4/2/08 L J QUANTITY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 set 1 101 Cricket Lane file: RECEIVED APR 2 2008 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOV! HEALTH DEPARTMENT Tax Exempt 79 120 TOTAL V $79 120 I 187 8'-2x11 2 82x14 3 11x17 10 24x36 plans 4 18x24 plans RECEIVED APR 2 2008 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOV! HEALTH DEPARTMENT Tax Exempt 79 120 TOTAL V $79 120 I Page 1 of 1 rt .6 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:11 AM To: 'Wtmatt@aol.com' Subject: RE: Request for copies -101 Cricket Lane Importance: High Hello, The copy of the file is all set. Please make your check payable to Dover Press, 42 Second Street, North Andover, MA 01845 in the amount of $79.20. You may bring the payment to me to provide to Dover Press when you come to pick up the copy of the file. Thank you. Pamela Health Dept. Assistant 978.688.9540 -----Original Message ----- From: Wtmatt@aol.com [mailto:Wtmatt@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:20 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Cc: SethSal@aol.com Subject: Re: Request for copies Pam, As I discussed with you yesterday, Please reproduce the 101 Cricket Street Board of Heath file. Please contact me when the file is ready to be picked up. Thank you, Bill Matt Seth Salinger Law Office 53 Langley Road Newton, MA 02459 t. (617) 244-7630 f. (617) 244-7640 c. (617) 293-5715 Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch -the video on AOL_ Living. 4/3/2008 I Town of North Andover Office of the Conservation Department Community Development and Services Division Health Department 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Sandra Starr Health Director MEMORANDUM TO: Mike McGuire, Building Inspector FROM. Brian J LaGrasse, Health Inspector RE: 109. Cricket Lane DATE: August 8, 2002 Telephone (978) 688-9540 Fax (978) 688-9542 I am sending you this memo in regards to the septic system located at the aforementioned address. The septic system does not have a Certificate of Compliance and the property should not be given an occupancy permit at this time. Feel free to contact me at anytime if you have any questions or would like additional information. . Since 1 an 7. LaGrasse Health Inspector cc: Sandra Starr, Health Director Board of Health File BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 ARCO Excavator's Inc. P.O. Box 70 Kingston, NH 03848 (978) 685-5113 North Andover Health Department Sandra Starr, Health Director 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01945 RE: Lot 2 Cricket Lane Dear Sandy, This letter is a follow up to a conversation I had with your inspector, Brian LaGrasse, on Tuesday, April 16, 2002, in regards to the septic installation permit issued to me for Lot 2 Cricket Lane. As you may be aware this permit was issued some time ago. The issue date was actually 5/24/00. What you may not be aware of is that the lot was sold before I was able to complete the final grading on the septic system. Since the new owners purchased the property they have hired other contractors to regrade and landscape the site. They have made noticeable grade changes including a stone retaining wall. Today while I was working on Cricket Lane I personally observed Wickson Inc. driving a large rubber tire backhoe directly over the system components. This occurred many tunes during the day. I informed Wickson of the potential damage to the system and my warnings did not result in any change in activity. This is what prompted my phone call to Brian Lagrasse. In addition to my concern for the septic system I wanted you to know the following: 1) ARCO is not currently doing the work on this site 2) I will not sign off on the certificate of compliance for this system 3) I do not feel that any future liability of the function of this system should lie upon ARCO Excavator's Inc or myself. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Sincerely, William Sawyer, President ARCO Excavator's Inc. t7 Wc c Z O Z s E U a a L o` W O LL U W - J �` \_ f" Q 0 J N a W \ ` 2 O � Z � O > o U Q 3 i m o oC c o a ^° Z Z a c Z N ce O `r' a v vii 2 I— rti > = u F- U o Qce w a a > 2 o `o Q c~i� Z o c LL O a on E- O Q p N o -c Y a� LO Q n� O Z m O o 3 v 0 0 —4 3 c < o `� O -� p C t* E 0) W Q > N Z re In— Eit ».* c .� a ppv r ej•�F O �a.+ N C ,� r ;d,r tm �,,, C b O Q �R 3 a> �Mp1 **• Q V) CL. V) W LL INSTALLER PROJECT MANAGEMENT OBLIGATIONS As the North Andover licensed installer for the construction of the septic system for the property at/ T f�/`rr1�G� �u ' relative to the application of 9M dated y1%vg j� for plans by In e Lr -IAO& and dated ?9_ with revisions dated 3 -,V I understand and agree to the following obligations for management of this project: 1. As the installer I am obligated to call for any and all inspections. If homeowner, contractor, project manger, or any other person not associated with my company schedules an inspection and the system is not ready then item two shall be applicable . 2. As the installer I am required to have the necessary work completed prior to the applicable inspections as indicated below. I understand that requesting an inspection, without completion of the items in accordance with Title 5 and the Board of Health Regulations may result in a $50.00 fine being levied against my company. a) Bottom of Bed — generally first inspection unless there is a retaining wall which should be done first. Installer must request the inspection but does not have to be present. b) Final inspection — Engineer must first do their inspection for elevations, ties, etc. As -built or verbal OK from engineer must be submitted to BOH, after which installer calls for inspection time. Installer must be present for this inspection. With pump system all electrical work must be ready and able to cause pump to work and alarm to function. c) Final Grade — Installer must request inspection when all grading is complete. Does not have to be on site. if 3. As the installer I understand that persons or companies not associated with my company may not perform the work required by my company to complete the installation of the system identified in the attached application for installation. I finther understand that work by others unlicensed to install septic systems in North Andover can constitute reasons for denial of the system, and/or revocation or suspension of my license in the Town of North Andover plus significant fines to all persons involved. 4. As the Installer I understand that I must be on site during the performance of the following construction steps: a) Determination that the proper elevation of the excavation has been reached. b) Inspection of the sand and stone to be used. c) Final inspection by Board of Health staff d) Installation of tank, D -box, pipes, stone, vent, pump chamber, retaining wall and other components. 5. As the installer I understand that I am solely responsible for the installation of the system as per the approved plans. No instructions by the homeowner, general contractor, or any other persons shall absolve the of this obligation. Undersigned Licensed Se tic Installer /,;Y, 4 Date: i'. 1AY24 APPLICATION FOR DISPOSAL WORKS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT DATE CURRENT INSTALLER'S LICENSE#_&V—CJ LOCATION:V l��f LICENSED Ei STALLER: SIGNATURE: V TELEPHONE 4S- > 67//'•3 CHECK ONE: REPAIR: NEW CONSTRUCTION: IF NEW CONSTUCTION, PLEASE ATTACH FOUNDATION AS -BUILT. Administrative Use Only 575.00 Fee Attached? Yes No Foundation As -Built? Yes No Floor Plans? Yes V/ No Approval Date: 0A if _ f FORM U - LOT RELEASE FORM INSTRUCTIONS: This form is used to verify that all necessary approvalslpermits from• Boards and Departments having jurisdiction have been obtained. This does not relieve the applicant. and/or landowner from compliance with any applicable or requirements. ****************************AFPLICANT FILLS OUT THIS SECTIONS*'�`*** �.l-G APPLICANT Q_\ CV It-- eyt�rS�w PHONE LOCATION: Assessors Map Number d PARCEL SUBDIVISION LOT (S) STREET ST. NUMBER lbl ********* OFFICIAL USE ONLY RECOMMENDATIONS -OF TOWN AGENTS: CONSERVATION -ADMINISTRATOR DATE APPROVED DATE REJECTED COMMENTS TOWN PLANNER DATE APPROVED DATE REJECTED COMMENTS FOOD INSPECTOR -HEALTH DATE APPROVED DATE REJECTED SES S CTOR-HEALTH DATE APPROVED /a/�'Z _ DATE REJECTED COMMENTS •� p PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER/'NATER CONNECTIONS DR1VE'NAY PERMIT �/ FIRE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED BY BUILDING !NS?ECTCR Revised 9!97 jm ATC a� c m� J a) ao m � '_a O w Q C p — C o _ LO . a) C) Z 101, FINAL GRADE INSPECTION Date: Address: ❑ LOAMED? ❑ SEEDED? ❑ COVER PER PLAN? Other: i TO- /* �,� /sem ��� �1 Arl - li t // ,1 ,2 I; -------------- WAR j/ L- .7 t���/a✓ aye J_ adl �ij z 43S , " � l (� ���� Cs/ � �`�C'. ��� �/fes✓L �''�/'Z' / 1 4��7411 1 la -se to" 21 Jf ya// " - - 19 Z W-44 �11- -I_ -. -, _-. - -., • minor adjustment of property lines between Lots 2 and 3 for a total transfer of approx 1500sf to us, with no change in frontage for either property and with associated setbacks and lot sizes meeting zoning requirements. As a result, we will be in a position to shortly submit: (a) an ANR plan prepared by a certified surveyor and Form A joindy-prepared between ourselves and the owners of Lot 3 for the property -line adjustment; (b) a septic plan for our property based on this property -line adjustment that is in the form of a repair rather than a re -design in that it 2Wy involves moving one existing leach trench along its axis without the need for any poured -concrete septic wall, whilst ensuring full compliance with Tide 5 minimum requirements for new - construction with regard to all setbacks for the soil absorption system for this leach trench, as well as Title 5 minimum requirements for new -construction for the system as a whole. We trust we will receive co-operation of the various Town departments involved in our submissions so that we are able to correctly and fully comply with Tide 5 compliance requirements for our new -construction property this season, weather permitting, in order to prevent our otherwise habitable property remaining unoccupied by us for the second winter/spring running. Yours i�l, Willis Rubina Hendley cc Mr Mark Rees, Town Manager Ms Rosemary Smedile, Chairman, Board of Selectmen Ms Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director and Acting Health Director Mr Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner Mr Michael McGuire, Building Inspector Mr J Justin Woods, Planning Dept Director Mr Alberto Angles, Chairman, Planning Board Mr Brian LaGrasse, Health Inspector Building Dept file for 101 Cricket Lane Health Dept file for 101 Cricket Lane .40 ZF 3 Willis & Rubina Hendle �k '�► y r 105 Rolling Ridge Lane As Methuen, MA 01844-2669 z a 'tom Monday October 27 2003 Rayrri�nd Santini �� Delivered by Hand Assistant Town Manager } / t Town of North Andover I .120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: 101(Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision: Our Proposal to Address the Removal and Replacement of the Septic System at ur above -referenced New -Construction Property and the Encroachment of our Deeded Septic Grading Easement Dear Mr Santilli, Further to our letter dated September 17, 2003, we wish to inform you of a solution devised by us to remedy the following serious issues that have been left unaddressed and unresolved to date, namely: 1. the encroachment of a large section of the septic grading easement deeded for our use on the adjacent property, as well as a minor encroachment of a portion of the adjacent property's driveway across our property line; 2. the adverse impact to the adjacent property in the event we exercise our tight to use our deeded septic. easement for the purposes it is designated; 3. the removal and .replacement of a significant portion of the existing septic installation at our property as outlined in our September 17 letter to you as a result of existing conditions at our property that preclude these components from complying with Title 5 setback requirements for new -construction; 4. the need for a poured -concrete septic wall in the vicinity of the property line (upon replacement of the existing system) that had never formed part of theoriginal approved septic design at our property nor the subsequent septic installation based on it. Our solution addresses the above issues, as well as the inequitable situation in which the owners of the property adjacent to ours have full use and enjoyment of their property as well as that gained by encroachment of our easement, with the consequent negative impact on the use and enjoyment of ours. Some weeks ago; we presented this solution in the form of a proposal to the owners of the .property at 115 (Lot 3) on which our easement is located and our attorney has confirmed their acceptance of the following: • removal of our entire existing deeded septic grading easement (approx 1600sf) from Ms Simon's property and addition of a new small area at the street right-of-way line deeded for septic access and grading for our property; DEC -16-2003 11.:43 AM Low~4_-Eng. & Env. Service 978 u6lJILDm TIES N RT li �ff-ma CLIRMER I l 1 6. ! L' 0foi C A ef1TLk r — f I ;n � 43.59' x_j, •0. ' F 'yt r A) 0981 P. 03 .,,,-� / 33.1' / 5oG Z �i 32.76' f as ��- �r9 1 75.00' �p .. igti�rt l 22 \ NOTE: PLAN R C01MCATION 8 NOT A W ANTY Or THE SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL IT IS A RECORo Of THE LOCATION No ELEVATION OF THE DISTINO SYSTEM COMPONENTS. i REVISIONS DA ,r CHANGED NAME PLAN WAS PREPARED FOR 8/1; SAS -BUILT SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM LOCATED IN NORTH ANDOVER, MA. AS PREPARED FOR WHM & RUBINA HENDLEY m 105 R"Q RIDGE LANE METHUEN, MA, 01844 SCALE: 1"-20' DATE! NOVEMBER 17. 2000 SUBDIVISION UOT s2 101 CRICKET LAIEE �MIER04ACK ENCREEIM SSS FROFESBONAL DXMK R6 • LAW SUIIVETORS • PLANERS U PAM SFW - AyfM VANAMMM MM tel tr►el 47e -M - as URN 4m -ma c / Z OJ O L W W W - O N �CLi�C10N0001N 00 00I uj O I i J mw 1 0 >� w �zzz = fr h ' W — �-- U) Z z Z Z Z O T Q Q D Z O o w p_.Omma Y Y Z z O Z Z z O O C i U- Q L ©pUVCr�� I Ct Da -a- s OPoLvWiV)iooa ,e J13lM0b0 N1808 V AH10W11� J/ N l 10� IRV u i �T � tet• Y m, " a w v w uj vi z W r +� �7Rf'Ir + r h4') = C w •.. z w ,cam 0 ? z iLTI � {j 0 �Oy U .. 3 Q dC c Ui o z O 4H i'�,m w w Q� o Z 0 Q 00 co i f" j Y o n ¢` 0 5 w I Z �,j,J i�.0� zLLJ < i �� L Z 1 z' 0 w da0m w ! r...�00_ �. Y 1 U o U' zLai w IQ c o LL- O IMh 0 0 I ^ 44 4 cn J13lM0b0 N1808 V AH10W11� J/ N l 10� IRV u i � tet• Y m, " by JIA d vi �7Rf'Ir + r ti "c 15 c �Q N E pia �OQ�� 41 O. X01 / �. Z0 -d 1860 6b9 816 aoln.tag -nu3 T -bu3 pun -1 wo £b=11 £00Z -9i -33Q HP Fax K 1220xi Last Transaction Date Time TVe Dec 16 2:59pm Fax Sent Identification 819782820012 Log for NORTH ANDOVER Dec6 542 200 c Aoly—ttlo� D 16 2003 3:02pm Duration Pages Result 2:02 2 OK DEC -1P6-2003 11:42 AM LaF'4^LEne. & Env. Service 978 w49 0981 P.01 lyr.. f Land Engineering 130 MIDDLESEX RDAD, SUr!E 15 r Environmental Sert ices, LLC. rMWBORO, MA 01879 CONSULTING CIKI ENGINEW if LAND PLANNINO TELEPHONE (978) 649.4641 /FAX (978)649.0991 semkr's ra df. doagkn*arrh11nkwr DAA December 18, 2003 F"m 3 The North Andover Board of Health Pa 978.888-9542 Tot Dan Ottlenhelmer Q MITI City Consulting Faw: 978-282.0012 The Fmn TO: Rom Douglas Lees Fla Orlttlnals 0 will Dan, Per our conversation lest week I am faxing elevations at 101 Cricket Lane. The end of Thank You, Faw 101 Cricket Lane Subsurface Not iu a corrected schedule of elevations for the as bulk Inch n on Ve submitted In Incorrect The the original As-Buik Plan by Mmack Enairm—m I'm Doug Lees C:any dowmaddWax Page 1 of 1 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Dan Ottenheimer [info@millriverconsulfing.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:20 PM To: Heidi Griffin; Brian LaGrasse; Pamela Dellechiaie Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Heidi, Brian and Pam, Attached please find a plan approval letter for the property at 101 Cricket Lane. The approval is based on several conditions which we think are prudent based on some of the confusing issues which have arisen at this parcel. Some of the approval conditions frankly would have been reasons to disapprove the design on other parcels but due to the history here we thought everyone involved would feel better about a "thumbs up" letter with conditions rather than a "thumbs down" letter. Dan Daniel Ottenheimer, President Mill River Consulting Septic System Management Services 5 Blackburn Center Gloucester, MA 01930-2259 978-282-0014 or 1-800-377-3044 fax: 978-282-0012 www.miliCiverconsultina.com info@ millriverconsulting.corn 12/16/2003 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES HEALTH DEPARTMENT 27 CHARLES STREET . NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 Heidi Griffin Acting Health Director December. 16, 2003 Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 978.688.9540 — Phone 978.688.9542 — FAX RE: Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Plan for 101 Cricket Lane, Map 107A, Lot 286, North Andover, Massachusetts Dear Mr..& Mrs. Hendley, The North Andover Board of Health has completed review of the septic system design plans for the above referenced property submitted on your behalf by Norse Environmental Services, Inc. dated November 24, 2003 and received by this office on November 26, 2003, along with a letter of amendment by Norse Environmental Services, Inc. dated December 16, 2003. The design has been approved for use in the construction of an amended onsite septic system for the existing dwelling at this site. This approval is valid for three years from the date of this letter and during this time a licensed septic system installer must obtain a permit and complete this work, and a Certificate of Compliance must be endorsed by the installer, designer and the Town of North Andover. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. If site conditions are found in the field to be different from those indicated on the design plan and/or soil evaluation, the originally issued Disposal System Construction Permit is void, installation shall stop, and the applicant shall reapply for a new Disposal Systems Construction Permit (3 10 CMR 15.020(1)). 2. It is the responsibility of the applicant and/or the applicant's septic system designer, septic system installer or other representative to ensure that all other state and municipal requirements are met. These may include review by the Conservation Commission, Zoning Board, Planning Board, Building Inspector, Plumbing Inspector and/or Electrical Inspector. The issuance of a Disposal System Construction Permit shall not construe and/or imply compliance with any of the aforementioned requirements. 3. The piping in the distribution lateral is to be comprised of Schedule 40 PVC pursuant to the regulations of the North Andover Board of Health. 4.. The entire septic system is to be inspected by a septic system inspector licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection prior to issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Previous notice of three business days shall be provided to the North Andover Board of Health before commencement of said inspection. The inspection shall include at a minimum all components of an inspection as indicated in Title 5 plus the uncovering and exposing for visual examination of all concrete components and all piping shall be examined either remotely with camera equipment or physically exposed and visually examined. If repairs are necessary a Disposal Systems Construction Permit must be issued to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer prior to commencement of repairs, with repair inspections performed by the Board of Health. 5. The leach stone underneath the portion of Existing Leach Trench #2 which is slated to be abandoned shall be removed and the void filled with sand meeting the specifications of Title 5 fill material. 6. The locations of the property boundaries and the proposed amendment to Leach Trench #2 are to be staked by a Massachusetts Registered Land Surveyor. prior to commencement of construction. 7. The Certificate of Compliance must be signed by the designer, installer and municipal health official prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. 8. A more detailed plan is to be submitted showing how the retaining wall specified on the design plan will maintain compliance with 310 CMR 15.211 (1) (4) including the material of construction, placement of any necessary impervious barriers, etc. Your effort to provide a properly functioning septic system for your dwelling is greatly appreciated. The Health Department may be reached at 978-688-9540 with any questions you might have. Sincerely, Heidi Griffin, Acting Health Director encl: List of licensed septic system installers cc: file Norse Environmental Services, Inc. r 4 R DX BOARD OF HEALTH Location Permit- #. Food Service $ Retail Food $ Limited Retail $ Seasonal $ Disposal Works Installers $ Disposal Works Construction $ Soil Testing $ 7117 Health Agent White - Applicant Yellow - Dept. Pink - Treasurer Design Approval Permit ��; $ Dumpster Permit $ Burial Permit $ Swimming Pool Permit $ Animal Permit $ Recreational Camp Permit $ Well Construction Permit $ Funeral Directors Permit $ Massage Establishment License $ Massage Practice. License $ Suntanning Establishment $ offal/Trash Hauler $ Other $ 7117 Health Agent White - Applicant Yellow - Dept. Pink - Treasurer Town of North Andover HEALTH DEPARTMENT 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 healthdept(jownofnorthandover. com _ ,�,cs�i✓ s� SEPTIC PLAN SUBMITTAL FORM DATE OF SUBMISSION: NOVgMW -2-'!51,9-0b3 SITE LOCATION: ENGINEER: 160861 -AS N046 0&jR0r1Mre-1s4"r4L NEW PLANS: YES $225.00/Plan Check #: (Includes IstOEWPL"and one Re -Review Only) REVISED PLANS: YES iC $ 75.00/Plan X 4L o=QSCheck #: q47 PYQ0'oV'5 p1RA kC -YYQ 1 y SITE EVALUATION FORMS INCLUDED: YES NO LOCAL UPGRADE FORM INCLUDED: Telephone #: q%g ID �-9 *&4 ). Fax #: E-maik olOwt,ePS gAki,,,,k• ►at YES NO HOMEOWNER NAME: W j w S+ Pig j1VA OFFICE USE ONLY When the submission is complete (including check): F I. ✓ Date stamp plans and letter 2. Complete and attach Receipt 3. Copy File; Forward to Consultant 4. Enter on Iwo Sheet and Database Raymond Sandlli Assistant Town Manager Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: 101(Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision: Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Monday October 27, 2003 Delivered by Hand Our Proposal to Address the Removal and Replacement of the Septic System at our above -referenced New -Construction Property and the Encroachment of our Deeded Septic Grading Easement Dear Mr Santilli, Further to our letter dated September 17, 2003, we wish to inform you of a solution devised by us to remedy the following serious issues that have been left unaddressed and unresolved to date, namely: 1. the encroachment of a large section of the septic grading easement deeded for our use on the adjacent property, as well as a minor encroachment of a portion of the adjacent property's driveway across our property line; 2. the adverse impact to the adjacent property in the event we exercise our right to use out deeded septic easement for the purposes it is designated; 3. the removal and replacement of a significant portion of the existing septic installation at our property as outlined in our September 17 letter to you as a result of existing conditions at our property that preclude these components from complying with Title 5 setback requirements for new -construction; 4. the need for a poured -concrete septic wall in the vicinity of the property line (upon replacement of the existing system) that had never formed part of the original approved septic design at our property nor the subsequent septic installation based on it. Our solution addresses the above issues, as well as the inequitable situation in which the owners of the property adjacent to ours have full use and enjoyment of their property as well as that gained by encroachment of our easement, with the consequent negative impact on the use and enjoyment of ours. Some weeks ago, we presented this solution in the form of a proposal to the owners of the property at 115 (Lot 3) on which our easement is located and our attorney has confirmed their acceptance of the following: • removal of our entire existing deeded septic grading easement (approx 1600sf from Ms Simon's property and addition of a new small area at the street right-of-way line deeded for septic access and grading for our property; .CBiY- s7 minor adjustment of property lines between Lots 2 and 3 fora total transfer of approx 1500sf to us, with no change in frontage for either property and with associated setbacks and lot sizes meeting zoning requirements. As a result, we will be in a position to shortly submit: (a) an ANR plan prepared by a certified surveyor and Form A jointly -prepared between ourselves and the owners of Lot 3 for the property -line adjustment; (b) a septic plan for our property based on this property -line adjustment that is in the form of a repair rather than a re -design in that it o* involves moving one existing leach trench along its axis without the need for any poured -concrete septic wall, whilst ensuring full compliance with Title 5 minimum requirements for new - construction with regard to all setbacks for the soil absorption system for this leach trench, as well as Title 5 minimum requirements for new -construction for the system as a whole. We trust we will receive co-operation of the various Town departments involved in our submissions so that we are able to correctly and fully comply with Title 5 compliance requirements for our new -construction property this season, weather permitting, in order to prevent our otherwise habitable property remaining unoccupied by us for the second winter/spring running. Yours [� Willis i Rubina Hendley cc Mr Mark Rees, Town Manager Ms Rosemary Smedile, Chairman, Board of Selectmen Ms Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director and Acting Health Director Mr Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner Mr Michael McGuire, Building Inspector Mr J Justin Woods, Planning Dept Director Mr Alberto Angles, Chairman, Planning Board Mr Brian LaGrasse, Health Inspector Building Dept file for 101 Cricket Lane Health Dept file for 101 Cricket Lane R TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER 120 MAIN STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 t%ORTlf Raymond T Santilh ° Assistant Town Manager ; * °q .«gin:.. �+•� X & Human Resources Director ��sswc►+us October 22, 2003 Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hendley: TEL (978) 688-9516 FAX (978) 688-9556 Subsequent to the receipt of your September 17th correspondence, the Town of North Andover's septic consultant was directed to review the file for the property at 101 Cricket Lane. Enclosed please find a report from Mr. Daniel Ottenheimer of Mill River Consulting. If you have any questions and/or comments, please call me. Sincerely, i Raymond T. Santilli Assistant Town Manager & Human Resources Director Enclosure cc., Ms. Heidi Griffin, Director, Community Development & Services (w/enclosure) Mr. Brian Lagrasse, Health Department (w/enclosure) -------- 1J, t Yr TEL (978) 688-9516 FAX (978) 688-9556 Subsequent to the receipt of your September 17th correspondence, the Town of North Andover's septic consultant was directed to review the file for the property at 101 Cricket Lane. Enclosed please find a report from Mr. Daniel Ottenheimer of Mill River Consulting. If you have any questions and/or comments, please call me. Sincerely, i Raymond T. Santilli Assistant Town Manager & Human Resources Director Enclosure cc., Ms. Heidi Griffin, Director, Community Development & Services (w/enclosure) Mr. Brian Lagrasse, Health Department (w/enclosure) MILL RIVER CONSULTING Septic System Management Services October 15, 2003 Brain LaGrasse Health Inspector Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: 101 Cricket Lane Dear Mr. LaGrasse, oe'-1,42 5-s— As requested by the North Andover Board of Health, Mill River Consulting has reviewed the file for the property at 101 Cricket Lane in order to provide guidance towards resolution of the outstanding issues. To that end we make the following observations and suggestions. RETAINING WALUGRADING The approved subdivision plan apparently contains a grading easement to allow fill material to be brought onto the adjacent parcel to meet certain requirements of the septic system design and the state regulations. Apparently a driveway now exists in this easement and the placement of fill in this location would be problematic. Based on review of the file it does appear possible for a retaining wall to be constructed which will be in compliance with state and local codes and remain entirely within the bounds of the locus property. This will reduce or eliminate a series of questions and concerns which exist about final grading, legal documentation and the ability for the adjacent property owner to utilize their driveway. Design of a poured concrete retaining wall to meet the regulatory grading requirements while staying within the property line to the North of the soil absorption system likely could be completed. State regulations allow the 10' offset from the soil absorption system to the impervious barrier and retaining wall to be reduced, without a variance, when site conditions require. After a proper design for the wall has been completed and reviewed, a Disposal Systems Construction Permit may be issued to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer to construct the wall. Inspections should be performed by the Board of Health and the designer to assure compliance with the design and regulatory requirements. Prior to construction the property line should be staked by a land surveyor, and an as -built plan of the wall and its location should be provided by the designer. Additionally, a copy of the recorded easement should be provided by the owners for the Board of Health records. 5 Blackburn Center, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-2259 toll free 1.800.377.3044 978.282.0014 info@amillriverconsulting.com MILL RIVER CONSULTING Septic System Management Services 2. EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM CONDITION Letters and plan notes indicate some portions of the septic system may have been damaged. All concrete components should be exposed and visually examined, while all piping should be examined either remotely with camera equipment or physically exposed and visually examined. If repairs are necessary a Disposal Systems Construction Permit should be issued to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer, with inspections performed by the Board of Health. It is apparently already known that replacement of one of the distribution laterals will be required. 3. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE For a Certificate of Compliance to be valid it must be signed by the designer, installer and municipal health official. Upon proper completion of the wall design and construction, and the inspection and repair of the septic system components, the Town of North Andover should be able to sign the Certificate of Compliance. Based on correspondence in the file, it is unclear if the original Disposal Systems Installer would undertake such action. The former or current property owner(s) will need to work with the current or another Disposal Systems Installer to obtain the required endorsements before a legally valid Certificate of Compliance can be issued. We hope this file review and accompanying suggestions have provided the Town of North Andover with the information necessary to resolve this matter. Feel free to contact me should any additional information be necessary. Sincerely, V44de8 dttewwta Daniel Ottenheimer President 5Blackburn Center, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-2259 toll free 1.800.377.3044 978 282 0014 infogmillnverconsulting.com MILL RIVER CONSULTING Septic System Management Services the designer. Additionally, a copy of the recorded easement should be provided by the owners for the Board of Health records. 2. EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM CONDITION Letters and plan notes indicate some portions of the septic system may have been damaged. All concrete components should be exposed and visually examined, while all piping should be examined either remotely with camera equipment or physically exposed and visually examined. If repairs are necessary a Disposal Systems Construction Permit should be issued to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer, with inspections performed by the Board of Health. It is apparently already known that replacement of one of the distribution laterals will be required. 3. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE For a Certificate of Compliance to be valid it must be signed by the designer, installer and municipal health official. Upon proper completion of the wall design and construction, and the inspection and repair of the septic system components, the Town of North Andover should be able to sign the Certificate of Compliance. Based on correspondence in the file, it is unclear if the original Disposal Systems Installer would undertake such action. The former or current property owner(s) will need to work with the current or another Disposal Systems Installer to obtain the required endorsements before a legally valid Certificate of Compliance can be issued. We hope this file review and accompanying suggestions have provided the Town of North Andover with the information necessary to resolve this matter. Feel free to contact me should any additional information be necessary. Sincerely, Daniel Ottenheimer Daniel Ottenheimer President 5 Blackburn Center, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-2259 toll free 1.800.377.3044 978.282.0014 info@millriverconsulting.com / .cX0 0"-.r.Y MILL RIVER CONSULTING Septic System Management Services October 15, 2003 Brain LaGrasse Health Inspector Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: 101 Cricket Lane Dear Mr. LaGrasse, As requested by the North Andover Board of Health, .Mill River Consulting has reviewed the file for the property at 101 Cricket Lane in order to provide guidance towards resolution of the outstanding issues. To that end we make the following observations and suggestions. 1. RETAINING WALL/GRADING The approved subdivision plan apparently contains a grading easement to allow fill material to be brought onto the adjacent parcel to meet certain requirements of the septic system design and the state regulations. Apparently a driveway now exists in this easement and the placement of fill in this location would be problematic. Based on review of the file it does appear possible for a retaining wall to be constructed which will be in compliance with state and local codes and remain entirely within the bounds of the locus property. This will reduce or eliminate a series of questions and concerns which exist about final grading, legal documentation and the ability for the adjacent property owner to utilize their driveway. Design of a poured concrete retaining wall to meet the regulatory grading requirements while staying within the property line to the North of the soil absorption system likely could be completed. State regulations allow the 10' offset from the soil absorption system to the impervious barrier and retaining wall to be reduced, without a variance, when site conditions require. After a proper design for the wall has been completed and reviewed, a Disposal Systems Construction Permit may be issued to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer to construct the wall. Inspections should be performed by the Board of Health and the designer to assure compliance with the design and regulatory requirements. Prior to construction the property line should be staked by a land surveyor, and #,A' as -built plan of the wall and its location should be provided by 5 Blackburn Center, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-2259 toll free 1.800.377.3044 978.282.0014 info@millriverconsulting.com ... .. _ 9 � . . ... \� � r % u � §§ LO \ Im ;7 k §2 a |{ - e 5 \ g i? �� 0 \ / g Mr Raymond Santilli Assistant Town Manager Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 018 v cR, car t A^C— Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Wednesday September 17, 2003 Delivered by Hand Re: 101(Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision: Notification of Invalidity of Septic Design Plan [Oct 15, 2002 revision and NABOH approval Nov 4, 2002] for above -referenced New -Construction property Dear Mr Santil i, On August 21, we determined that the above -referenced septic design plan, depicting construction of a 75 feet long septic wall, 4 feet above grade at its highest point, to bring the existing septic installation at our new -construction property into compliance with minimum setbacks, appeared to be invalid. We believed that the deeded septic easement appurtenant to our property precluded use for construction, since this easement was described solely for the purposes of access and addition and/or movement of soil or earth material. Therefore, it appeared to us that the section of the septic wall construction that had been depicted within this easement would not be legally permissible. By September 5, we had received independent confirmation of our doubts from our septic designer and real estate attorney. We are legally -obligated to disclose this information despite the approval received from your Health Director Ms Sandra Starr ten months ago for implementation of the above -referenced plan. . We also discovered other deficiencies per regulations in both the preparation and subsequent approval of the plan, such as: • failure to provide written proof of a septic easement, per NABOH 9.02; • failure to provide evidence (book and page number) of the registry -recorded septic easement, per NABOH 9.02; • failure to depict names of abutters, per NABOH 8.02j; • failure to list variance from NABOH 9.02 "Retaining walls used to make breakout according to 310 CMR 15.255(2) shall be reinforced poured concrete" in proposing the "Versa -Lok retaining wall"; • failure to depict water lines and other subsurface utilities, per 310 CMR 15.220(m) and NABOH 8.02u; • failure to state disclaimer "No wetland or watercourse exists within 100 feet from the leaching facility or reserve area", per NABOH 8.02s. y�. r f 18 2M r Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Wednesday September 17, 2003 Delivered by Hand Re: 101(Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision: Notification of Invalidity of Septic Design Plan [Oct 15, 2002 revision and NABOH approval Nov 4, 2002] for above -referenced New -Construction property Dear Mr Santil i, On August 21, we determined that the above -referenced septic design plan, depicting construction of a 75 feet long septic wall, 4 feet above grade at its highest point, to bring the existing septic installation at our new -construction property into compliance with minimum setbacks, appeared to be invalid. We believed that the deeded septic easement appurtenant to our property precluded use for construction, since this easement was described solely for the purposes of access and addition and/or movement of soil or earth material. Therefore, it appeared to us that the section of the septic wall construction that had been depicted within this easement would not be legally permissible. By September 5, we had received independent confirmation of our doubts from our septic designer and real estate attorney. We are legally -obligated to disclose this information despite the approval received from your Health Director Ms Sandra Starr ten months ago for implementation of the above -referenced plan. . We also discovered other deficiencies per regulations in both the preparation and subsequent approval of the plan, such as: • failure to provide written proof of a septic easement, per NABOH 9.02; • failure to provide evidence (book and page number) of the registry -recorded septic easement, per NABOH 9.02; • failure to depict names of abutters, per NABOH 8.02j; • failure to list variance from NABOH 9.02 "Retaining walls used to make breakout according to 310 CMR 15.255(2) shall be reinforced poured concrete" in proposing the "Versa -Lok retaining wall"; • failure to depict water lines and other subsurface utilities, per 310 CMR 15.220(m) and NABOH 8.02u; • failure to state disclaimer "No wetland or watercourse exists within 100 feet from the leaching facility or reserve area", per NABOH 8.02s. y�. A complication in our efforts to bring our existing septic installation into compliance with setback requirements is the fact that a portion of our deeded septic easement, in the vicinity of a leach trench adjacent to the property line, was actually compromised during construction on the adjacent lot. If we exercised our right to use of this easement, the addition of soil to a height of 4 feet would create significant topographical changes that would prevent our neighbors from any access to their garages. As we stated in a November 11, 2002, communication to Ms Heidi Griffin "We cannot, in all sanity, leave our neighbors with this obstruction." On our behalf, our septic designer has determined that upon removal of the incorrectly - depicted septic wall from this section of easement: • it will not be possible to bring the existing septic leach trench adjacent to the property line into compliance with minimum setback requirements by the addition of soil, even if this portion of our septic easement had not been compromised. Therefore, our only option -based on existing site conditions, which aside from our completed landscaping, are the same as when the original septic installation was completed in November 2000 - is the: (a) removal of both existing leach trenches and replacement with a three -trench design; (b) removal and replacement of the existing distribution box; (c) construction of a slope -retention and sewage -mitigation septic wall, which is necessarily longer and higher to compensate for loss of use of our septic easement on the adjacent property for the purposes of soil addition. We have received verbal estimates for the work (a) — (c) above conservatively estimated at $40,000 that do not include restoration of the landscaping. This course of action will incur further financial hardship for us and the delay associated with its administration and implementation could place us in jeopardy of not being able to occupy our otherwise habitable property for the second winter running. It is small comfort to us that the Town of North Andover is only now considering possible dismissal action against Ms Starr, when we are in the position of having to dig up a substantial portion of a septic system installed to completion under her oversight whilst our former builder was legal owner and for which she also let the installer of record walk away. With regard to the septic installation at our property during.this time, Ms Starr failed to keep a complete record or _ enforce the submission of DEP-mandated documentation. This has effectively meant that events behind the septic non-compliance at our new -construction property are concealed from scrutiny. One of the many significant failures on her part was the Title 5 requirement, before sale of a property, that mandates the previous owner (our former builder) to submit the results of a septic inspection for a system for which a local board of health has not issued a certificate o omplir^�� Your s X,4. _M1 Willis A M Hendley lart-10-t Rubina Hendley cc Mr Mark Rees, Town Manager Ms Rosemary Smedile, Chairman, Board of Selectmen Ms Heidi Griffin, Acting Health Director and Community Development Director Mr Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner Mr Michael McGuire, Building Inspector Mr J Justin Woods, Planning Department Mr Brian LaGrasse, Health Inspector Building Department file for 101 Cricket Lane Health Department file for 101 Cricket Lane Town of North Andover Office of the Health Department Community Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Heidi Griffin Acting Public Health Director September 5, 2003 Willis and Rubma Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 RE: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane Septic Design Approvals Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley: Telephone (978) 688-9540 Fax (978) 688-9542 Septic design plans dated Revised October 15, 2002, for the aforementioned address were submitted to the Board of Health for design approvals on October 21, 2002. There was a technical deficiency with regard to the retaining walls bottom elevation not being included on the design plans. Mrs. Sandra Starr spoke with Norse Environmental on November 1, 2002 and requested the addition of the retaining wall elevation. Revised design plans dated November 1, 2002 were submitted and subsequently approved on November 4, 2002. Verbal approvals were granted to Norse Environmental regarding the septic design plans with written approval to follow. The septic design plans dated September 23, 2002, Revised October 15, 2002 and November 1, 2002, are currently approved and signed. You may pick up copies of the signed plan at the Health Department at you earliest convenience. t SincZLaGrasse Br' Health Inspector Cc: Ray Santilli, Assistant Town Manager Heidi Griffin, Acting Public Health Director File BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 RECEIVED Willis & Rubina Hendley AUG 2 6 2003 ; �J 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 NORTH ANDOVER CONSERVATION COMMISSION Fax 978 685 1064 Ms Sandra Starr Director, Health Dept Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Delivered by hand RE: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision Dear Ms Starr, Tuesday August 26, 2003 At your earliest convenience, please submit copies of the following with regard to the septic system non-compliance at the above property. Transmittal via fax is acceptable: 1) current list of certified septic installers for the Town of North Andover; 2) copies of your letters sent to Mr Steven Eriksen of Norse Environmental Services with regard to your disapproval of the original design plan submitted by him dated 9/23/02 and your subsequent approval of his 10/15/02 revision to this, per NA BOH septic regulation 2.04 Review Letters: "Approval or disapproval letters will be sent to the designer upon completion of the plan review" Yours sincerely, Willis Hendley cc Delivered by hand: 94 Rubina Hendley Mr Mark Rees, Town Manager Mr Ray Santilli, Assistant Town Manager Ms Rosemary Smedile, Chairman, Board of Selectmen w: TOWN OF NORTH N DOVER 7 R F p°Rrk BOARD OF HEALTH 27 CHARLES STREET > NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 SSACHUS� FRANCIS R MACMILLAN. M.D. Telephone (974) 688-9540 CHAIRMAN FAX (978) 688-9542 Sandra Starr, R..S., C.H.O. Public Health Director MEMORANDUM FILE DATE: May 20, 2003 TO: Heidi Griffin, Director, CD&S FROM: Sandra Starr, Health Director RE: Lot 2 Cricket Lane (101) Status The Health Department is awaiting the application of a North Andover Licensed septic installer to repair and complete the septic system. The installation process stalled when the licensed installer stopped working on the site before the process was finished. At some subsequent point the pipe in the leach area was broken. There were also issues with an easement, such that the original design required a modification in order to comply with Title 5 of the State Environmental Code. A design was developed by Steve Erickson of Norse Environmental, submitted and approved by the Health Department. All that remains is for a licensed installer to • obtain a permit from the Health Department, • construct a retaining wall according to the modified design, • replace the broken pipe, • have the repair and wall inspected, • cover the system, and • have the Health Department perform a final grade inspection. A septic installer's list was sent to the owners on April 11, 2003. Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Monday May 19, 2003 Delivered by hand TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER OPEN LETTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND SELECTPERSONS Re: Our Seeking Occupancy for 101 Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision Our Open Letter supplements the first formal protest we made in writing to your Town Manager, in a communication dated Friday November 22, 2002, of how your officials connected with the building process engaged in maneuvers to make our ability to obtain final sign -offs for our Occupancy Permit for our above home -to -be as miserable as possible, so that, presumably, we are encouraged to give up trying to ever become residents of North Andover and/or that these deliberate delays lead us into financial constraints to make us foreclose on our property. In our account to your Town Manager of what occurred to us regarding the final sign -offs from your Plumbing/Gas and Fire Inspectors, we condensed the run-around we received from them. The actual events were a disgraceful and lengthy subjugation of us to meeting supposed conditions that chopped and changed ad infinitum so that a final -sign -off process that took A FEW MINUTES in IDENTICAL circumstances at other properties in this subdivision were made into weeks and months in our case. The intent of these officials had nothing to do with any semblance of performing their duties in a professional manner - it was designed to cause us maximum aggravation. Rubina's vilification in the public record (and our staunch belief that these officials would have thought twice about doing this to a white person) by your Conservation Administrator Ms Julie Parrino and Director of Public Works Mr Robert Beshara is an outrage perpetrated by these officials of a magnitude that is egregious and reckless in the extreme. We are both the legal owners of this property, Ms Parrino and Mr Beshara had met both of us prior to sending out their recriminatory letters, yet it was Rubina who was singled out by them despite these alleged misdeeds being of a general nature allegedly affecting our property as a whole. These letters would have been despicable enough addressed to us both, but specifically targeting Rubina speaks volumes for the mindset of their senders. In these, Rubina was blamed for a series of alleged wrong -doings (including a DEP citation for criminal activity by Ms Parrino). Further, the supposed infractions within these letters were stated as fact with neither support nor substantiation at the time these officials made their written determinations, other than what appears to be remarkable psychic abilities on their part. With this ability, Mr Beshara also deemed that elements on our property be demolished or made threats of demolition against them with no basis whatsoever for his orders of destruction, not even providing an as -built plan. [Mr Beshara's threat to demolish a beautiful stone -wall directly adjacent to our property was particularly spiteful in its intent, since the Page 1 of 18 14,1CAW-Ow W `story' behind its construction is common knowledge in the subdivision.] Mr Beshara also conveniently omitted referring in his letter to the one-hour he spent haranguing Rubina at what he describes only as "his site visit" on May 23, and preferred instead to refer to what sounded like a jaunty tete-a-tete "with the homeowner and landscape contractor" on May 24, when in fact that day both of us, not just Rubina, were harassed by him. Both these reports in the public record also contain other outright falsehoods. -In the case of Mr Beshara's letter, the net result was to let the developer, our former builder and Mr Beshara himself off the hook for the real reason the town easement on our property was compromised by having the convenience of "Mrs Rubina Hendley" (already notorious as the subdivision villain courtesy of Ms Parrino) as the scapegoat. Then a few days after receipt of Mr Beshara's letter, the developer's daughter, Ms Gerry -Lynn Darcy, also sends Rubina a letter expressing righteous indignation at all the awful horrors Rubins has committed, as catalogued for her by Mr Beshara, and goes on to threaten legal action against Rubina for these (these, too, determined by Ms Darcy with what appear to be the same remarkable psychic abilities as Mr Beshara's and Ms Parrino's). Both Mr Beshara and Ms Darcy must think we were born yesterday to not realize how obviously orchestrated this was. No doubt this game so wantonly played by them both with defiling someone else's reputation also led to bond money being released by your town. Because these letters take the form of `official' pronouncements in the written public record, they will be taken seriously and assumed by many (as has already been the case within this subdivision) to be true without any question of their veracity or validity. Such libelous and defamatory statements soon became talking points in the subdivision, we learnt, and repeated with glee by the likes of your Health Administrator Mr Brian La Grasse in conversations with us. We have suffered enough from Mr LaGrasse's rudeness and sarcasm - we are not alone in remarking on this official's atrocious behavior - without his adding this slanderous fuel to his repertoire. [For instance, Willis asked a perfectly abstract question in an August 2002 phone conversation with Mr LaGrasse for advice on what we were supposed to do and was met with the answer: "Mr Sawyer is reputable. The reason you are in so much trouble is that you don't know what you're doing." By inference, we presume we are not "reputable".] These letters have understandably caused considerable distress to Rubina, that she feels to this day, as well as to Willis and our entire immediate family. Thus, there is an entire subdivision in your town with multiple examples of violations (some serious) committed by the developer and various contractors that can all be corroborated with hard facts, not mere suppositions, but which have remained virtually unreported, un -addressed and uncorrected by your officials, and yet the only damning record of malfeasance within it by any individual is that against brown -skinned "Mrs Rubina Hendley" on a foundation that is non-existent. Meanwhile, you, as a town, have not even bothered to even ask the most fundamental question of your officials involved in sending out these letters, even after we alerted you, namely, what specifically is the support for the criminal citation, demolition orders and reports of wrong -doing being stated as fact? We reached a point last November, not just of extreme mental and physical exhaustion, but also of realizing that the civility and composure we had maintained up to that point in our Page 2 of 18 ewe -8' TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSTALLATION CERTIFICATION The undersigned hereby certify that the Sewage Disposal System V) constructed; ( ) repaired: by located at !O j RICK --1— 43 C S %bi „. L 0a L.c Zi was installed in conformance with the North Andover Board of Health approved plan, System Design Permit # , dated with an approved design flow of 4AO gallons per day. The materials used were in conformance with those specified on the approved plan; the system was installed in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 15.000, Title 5 and local regulations, and the final grading agrees substantially with the approved plan. All work is accurately represented on the As -built which has been submitted to the Board of Health. Bed inspection date: LI D Final inspection date: _U0-OrJ(7 . . . Installer: Engineer Representative Engineer Representative Lic.#: Date: Design Engineer: NA � e,,,y„�c ,q Date: , iah �/6 e U n ZVI 86MID OF HEALTH INY€T FLEVATfQNS SU p LDING.CORNER A 8 �: G' 2 V "TIC TANK 33 31.4 riloxIT LEACH W-754-0! CH FIELD D 4' PIP 189.19 T IN -- TANK --- IN 31 OU7 = N = ... , .= a—. ....., —RN, (SACH FIELD #4of - - - —43.59 co �3 _1_33.1' ���• ! `•� -A9 ' 0f ��1flfl t,l� �.9 Q2 .JZ 71 4 `3°s• `4 � . •`S`' --�:,=dare :.. .� G ' •'`-• 38.31'. �,, 1 ,� � ��,���� s c� 75.00 y,�.7717 IQ sussuRFACE DLSPOSAL sySTEM LOCATED IN - NORM ANDOVER, MA: AS PREPAF FOR ' Wfu s & RUBiNA HENDL'EY \' NOIE: PLAN..dsRrFIG►TloN IS NOT :- �ft5 RDLUNfi RIDGE 4ANE ` A 1M ANTY 0� THE gUOWWACE DISPOSAL �,..K Y rt. TffE t�7roN" :' E'iFtliEf�i; 818'44 ,....-1T;r- SYSTE]AOOY ON NTINE G SCALE 1 DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2000 ` SI 13DMSI N CCT #2 101.. CRICKET LANE MERMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES — f?ROFMoNAL N%Nffn • LAND suRy6YCRS • PLANNM R IONS - -DATE . ee-Pxwc sniKr-�; �NcaYvt rMAKSEM CFlANGED NALtE PL,4N WAS PREPARED FQR 8%13J02 m (aro) 45'= • FAX WN) 11° Trnt4n .. .. .fl 07:CT 9nio7ion I �� TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS Public Health Director ADDRES; INSTALLE DESIGNE PLAN DA" BOH APP DATE OF 978.688.9540 — Phone 978.688.9542 — FAX SEPTIC SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION NOTES DATE OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION: DATE OF FINAL GRADE INSPECTION: SELECT SYSTEM TYPE GRAVITY DISTRIBUTION= PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION PRESSURE DOSING HOLDING TANK ADVANCED TREATMENT OTHER COMPONENT SUMMARY FROM PLAN GALLON TANK= jLnD LOADING OF SEPTIC TANK = �f(W GALLON PUMP CHAMBER =. LOADING OF PUMP CHAMBER = TYPE OF SAS = DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS OF SAS: h�L �jm I , JJ.5 '5 -'OVA SITE CONDITIONS D —'Cj i " ❑ Existing septic tank properly abandoned / ❑ Internal plumbing all to one building sewer ❑ Topography not appreciably altered Comments: Page 1 of 4 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 12:29 PM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Andy and Dan will be at the Cape as well. So in case of an upset person, here are a couple of thoughts. 1) If a tank bottom is being requested. Suggest they take a picture and send it in for the file or they can back fill all but one side so that we may see the stone base at the next inspection. 2) You can check with Lisa about scheduling Andy on Friday for any finals. I don't know their availability. If 50 Sherwood calls for a final, I will take care of that one myself. I can do 101 Cricket as well, if Mill River can't. Should be an easy one. Be carful with Boston and Gray. They can be pushy. Call us. Don't give out any permits to them. That is all I can think of now. Thanks for holding the fort down. S Susan Sawyer, R.S. Public Health Director office 978 688-9540 fax 978 688-8476 DelleChiaie, Pamela 0 From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:49 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Buddy Watson called. He is at 101 Cricket Lane. I scheduled a BOB, for the trench, at @ 1:00 today for Michele or myself. Susan Sawyer, R.S. Public Health Director office 978 688-9540 fax 978 688-8476 1 Commonwealth: of Massachusetts Map Block-Lot 107.A- 0286 - ----------------------- s p p Board of Health Permit No x x North Andover BHP-2oo5-o57s • ; , . . P.I. FEE .. . Sss"cMusw� F.I. $125.00 Disposal Works Construction Permit Permission is hereby granted JOSEPH R. WATSON j to (Repair) an Individual Sewage Disposal System. i at No 101 CRICKET LANE --------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ------ ------ ----- as shown on thea application for Disposal Works Construction Permit No BHP -,2005-057 Dated October 1.9, 2005 pP p- ,. Issued On: Oct- 19' 05 B �th -- ------ - - — ..-.... nn .... ...... .. .....r.... ......... ........ ....... -nu. ........ n.,.0 ....a. .n... .. ..... .. Ct **Too � 'Map Block -Lot Commonwealth of Massachusetts. ."'40 tai*ti10-7.-A0286 Board of Health--------------------- - r North .Andover Certificate of Compliance04 ,_._ THIS IS TO CERTIFY,;That the Individual Sewage sal System (Repair) by .JOSEPH R. WATSON -- -- - ------ Installer at No 101 CRICKET LANE --- -------------------------------------------- ------------ -- -------------------- has been installed in accor e with the provisions of TITLE 5 of the State Environmental Code as described in the application for Dim orks Construction Permit No. BHP -2005-057 Dated_ October 19 2005 Pp ; --- ----- ------ ---------------- Printed On Ott -19-2005 Board of Health .......................................................:....................................................................................................................... Health Departmenj Date: Location: 12 (Indicate Address, if Residential, or Name of Business) Check #: White - Applicant Yellow - Health Pink - Treasurer Type of Permit or License: (Circle) r ➢ Animal $ . ➢ Dumpster $ ➢ Food Service - Type:- - $L "' Funeral Directors $ Massage Establishment $ Massage Practice $ Offal (Septic) Hauler $ ➢ Recreational Camp $ ➢ S EPTICPERMITS: ❑ Septic - Soil Testing $ 3 r _ ❑ Septic - Design Approval $ ❑ Septic Disposal Works Construction (DWC) $� o Septic Disposal Works Installers (DWI) $ ➢ Sun tanning $ ➢ Swimming Pool $ Tobacco $ TrashlSolid Waste Hauler $ ➢ Well'Construction $ '` ➢ OTHER: (Indicate) ealth g t Initials 944 1 White - Applicant Yellow - Health Pink - Treasurer !: aE N°*rN, Application for Septic Disposal System /o-; 9 - o&s to.o.y y .,i� '`•4' ' '; �` , y AConstruction Permit — TOWN OF TODAY'S DATE $ 250.00 - Full Repair *, * NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845 $125.00 -Component s�CHus PAGE 2OF2 A. Facility Information continued.... 5. Type of Building:,KResidential Dwelling or ❑Commercial B. Agreement The undersigned agrees to ensure the construction and maintenance of the afore -described on-site sewage disposal system in accordance with the provisions of Title 5 of the Environmental Code, as well as the Local Subsurface Disposal Regulations for the Town of North Andover, and not to place the system in operation until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by this Board of Health. Nama v �._. Date Applicaf Approved By: oard of Health Representative) N e /9 —1 Date =� Application Disapproved for the following reasons: For Office Use Only: Application for Disposal System Construction Permit • Page 2 of 2 I L°� 1. Fee Attached? Yes No_/ p 2. Project Manager Obligation Form Attached? Yes No t/ 3. Pump Svstem? If so, Attach coMv ofElectrical Permit Yes No 4. Foundation As Built? (new construction ronly). Yes No (Same scale as approved plan) 5. Floor Plans? (new construction only). Yes No Application for Disposal System Construction Permit • Page 2 of 2 DelleChiaie Pamela From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 4:17 PM To: 'Daniel Ottenheimer (E-mail)'; 'Lisa LeVasseur (E-mail)'; 'McBrearty Andrew (E-mail)' Subject: FW: 101 Cricket Lane - Final Inspection Please forward the Final Construction Inspection report on this asap. Thanks! -----Original Message ----- From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 2:39 PM To: 'Daniel Ottenheimer (E-mail)'; 'Lisa LeVasseur (E-mail)'; 'McBrearty Andrew (E-mail)' Subject: 101 Cricket Lane - Final Inspection Can you do this one also when you are here for Foster Street? Thank you. Buddy Watson is the installer: 508.932.3204 80S1(R0gwVdS1 R.1#1044 D04B040011w10 Health Department Assistant Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax http://www.townofnorthandover.com healthdept@townofnorthandover.com 1 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 4:26 PM To: 'Daniel Ottenheimer (E-mail)'; 'Lisa LeVasseur (E-mail)'; 'McBrearty Andrew (E-mail)' Subject: 101 Cricket Lane - Bed Bottom Inspection -ONSTR INSP.- 101 Cricket Lane... 8asf Rw ds, A4*404 A940BB¢L0dW10 Health Department Assistant Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA o1845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax http://www.townofnorthandover.com healthdept@townofnorthandover.com 1 Memorandum To: Lincoln Daley, Town Planner Michael McGuire, Building Insp. Alison McKay, Conservation Administrator Bill Hmurciak, DPW Director Tim Willett, Director of Sewer and Water CC: . Curt Bellavance, CD&S Director Ray Santilli, Asst. Town Manager Human Resources Director From: Susan Sawyer, Health Director Date: 1015105 Re: 101 Cricket Lane To all Department Heads listed above, The Health Department is in the process of assisting Mr. and Mrs. Willis Hendley, the owner's of the property listed above, complete corrections to their septic system. The intention of the owners is to occupy this property in the near future. The septic system approval letter sent from the Health Office on December 16, 2003 states that. "it is the responsibility of the applicant and/ or the applicant's septic system designer, septic system installer or other representative to ensure that all other state and municipal requirements are met. These may include review by the Conservation Commission, Zoning Board, Planning Board, Building Inspector, Plumbing Inspector and/ or Electrical Inspector. The issuance of a Disposal system Construction Permit shall not construe and/or imply compliance with any of the aforementioned requirements." The owners have stated that "It is our intent that all applicable state and municipal requirements are met. However, we are not aware of any additionall or unusual requirements that fall into this category and request that the Town of North Andover notify us if it is aware of any that fit this description. ". The Health Office is not aware of any conditions that may affect the corrections needed on the septic system, however in an effort to assist in bringing this project to completion it was prudent to let each department know that these owners have intention to complete this site. Beyond the septic issues there may be other areas that need to be addressed by the owners regarding your respective departments. This letter serves as a request for each department to check your files and determie whether or not there remain any outstanding issues that may need attention/ or correction prior to the 1 October 5, 2005 homeowners receiving there occupancy permit. If you are aware of any other departments within the town that may not have been included in this memo, but may have issues, it is requeted that you pass this memo on to the appropriate persons. Please address any issues relating to 101 Cricket Lane that you may find outstanding to: Willis & Rubina Hcldley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 Thank you 2 Ave. TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER rio�Ty Office of COMSERVICE'S 'F'�.L 1. \ d� 9. ��1J 7 lJl=1�A.-5�1��4i i�T ,�i 1 �/ aJ �i��r$�y �1,J 0 yA HEALTH H DEP RTMENT =I00 ()SGOOB STREET �o -* NORTH ANDOVER_ MASSACHUSETTS 01W �SSA6HU5Y� Susan Y. Sawyer, REDS/RS Public Health Director October 4, 2005 Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 Re: 101 Cricket Lane Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley, 978.688,9510 — {phone 978.688.8476 — FAX E-MAIL: hcalthdeVt a_tgwiioinorthando_er.coin WEBSITE: httpJhwww_to«-nufnorthandover.coul This correspondence is in regards to your property listed above. The Health Department has received your correspondence dated September 25, 2005 in response to the approval letter sent by Heidi Griffin sent December 16, 2003. On a point by point correlation to your letter, the Health Department acknowledges agreement with your comments with the following items: # 1, #3, #5, #6, #7 and #8. In regards to #2, please see the attached memo sent to all land use and public works department heads. It is this office's anticipation that each department head that has concerns with regard to this parcel will contact you directly if necessary. In regards to # 4, in response to your comments, a conversation was held with Mr. Neil Bateson, a licensed septic inspector and installer. He recalled conducting the system inspection that you mentioned in accordance with the Health Department's request. His records indicated that his camera identified the damaged pipe. In his professional opinion he did not see a reason to completely expose parts of a system that has not been in use as the data would be minimally useful. Mr. Bateson's record did not indicate data on the condition of the 1500 -gallon septic tank nor did he recall viewing this component. He did recall the distribution box being level. It is this department's view that an observation of the distribution box and confirmation of the flow would be useful, in that if it has become unequal there is a small item that can be placed over the outlets to regulate flow. This item is inexpensive and very effective, therefore, it is determined that the requirement of the previous item #4 has been modified to require that upon installation of the pipe, the distribution box shall be exposed for the purpose of determining if speed levelers are needed to be installed. As was stated in the previous letter, please note that if you are considering installation this calendar year please note that the 2005 septic installation season closes on November 30'h. Permit issuance to install systems end November 15th. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence or any other aspect of your septic installation please contact the Health Department. Your effort to provide a properly functioning septic system for your dwelling is greatly appreciated. VSincer y, ,f S an Sawyer, REHS/RS Public Health Director Cc: Ray Santilli, Asst. Town Mgr. And Human Resources Dir. Curt Bellavance, Community Development and Services Director Enc. Memo dated Otober 4, 2005 Hendley's letter dated September 25, 2005 Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. 1 I Application for Septic Disposal Svstem Construction Permit — TOWN OF _I v Application is hereby made for a permit to: ❑ Construct a new on-site sewage disposal system* ❑ Repair or replace an existing on-site sewage disposal system* atepair or replace an existing system component A. Facility Info ation /de �;`�k�� Address or Lot # A'aloJ-e"'- City/Town 2.- *TYPE OFSEPTIC SYSTEM*: ❑ Pump ff Gravity (choose one) /***If pump system, attach copy of electrical permit to application*** M Conventional System (pipe and stone system) TODAY'S DATE $ 250.00 — Full Repair $125.00 - Component ❑ Infiltrator or Biodiffuser (Gravel -Less) (Attach a copy of your certification to install this type of system. ❑ Pressure Distribution S.A.S. (No D -Box) (Attach Draft Maintenance Agreement) ❑ Pressure Dosed (D -Box Present) S.A.S. 2. Owner Information Telephone Number 3. Installer Informationt � Up , a-ali /C; LA_ tSc�u V moi/ ca_f .S n iA (i(. Names/ -� 1 � Name of Company 'T • G� i cJ 2. U T Address Cityown State Zip Code Telephone Number (Cell Phone # if possible please) 4. Designer Information Name Name of Company Address CityfTown State Zip Code Telephone Number (Best # to Reach) Application for Disposal System Construction Permit - Page 1 of 2 ® owe A consulting Your complete source for o.n-site wastewater management RECEIVED NOV 9 2005 November 7, 2005 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS HEALTH DEPARTMENT Health Director North Andover Health Department 400 Osgood Street. North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 , RE:. Septic System Repair Inspection, 101 Cricket. Lane, Map 107A, Lot 286 Dear Ms. Sawyer; Mill River Consulting performed A final'construction inspection for the repair to the'soil absorption system at 101 Cricket Lane on November 1; 2005.. Construction was performed by Joseph R (Buddy)Watson. The plan date was 11/24/2003; and the BOH approval date on the plan was 12/16/2003. During our inspection, we. verified that the length of the trench addition was per plan, that appropriate stone was used in the trench, and that the" elevations -of the addition provide proper fall from the existing distribution box to the tie-in to the existing leaching line._ The following elevations were recorded at the site: Distribution box outlet 198.01 (Used as base elevation) Start of lateral 197.79 End of Addition 197:71 End of Lateral 197.47 Please feel free to -contact me should any questions arise. Sincerely, Andrew McBrearry Project Manager (� lJ' 2 Blackburn Center, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-2259. 1.-800-377-3044 or 978-282-0014 • Fax 978-28.2-0012 info@millriverconsulting.com 0 www.millriverconsulting.com From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:10 PM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: RE: 101 Cricket Lane think you have the final as -built in the file. Don't know about the cert. form thx -----Original Message ----- From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:54 AM To: Bellavance, Curt Cc: Sawyer, Susan Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Importance: High Hello Curt, Susan asked me to let you know that Mark Rees sent over a revised Disclosure form which indicated the following comments: "Susan Sawyer, her staff or contractors employed by the Town of North Andover shall not conduct any inspections at 101 Cricket Lane. Community Development Director will arrange for another Town's inspector to conduct all future inspections at this site. Upon review of the file, the status is that this property location needs the following work done to be considered as having a completed, acceptable septic system in the Town of North Andover (these are standards that all septic systems in Town must comply with): 1. A Final Grade Inspection needs to be completed - this includes checking that the site complies with the Final As Built plan, as well as being Loamed and Seeded and covered according to the approved plan. This inspection needs to be requested by Joseph R. (Buddy) Watson, the septic installer hired by Mr. & Mrs. Hendley. If he needs to be contacted for any reason, he can be reached at: 978.475.3262; Address: 43 Lowell Junction Road, Andover, MA 01810. 2. An Installation Certification Form needs to be. submitted to the Health Department by the engineer completed and signed by both the engineer and the installer certifying proper installation of the system. 3. A Final "As Built" plan needs to be submitted by the engineer. Note: A Certificate of Compliance will not be issued by the Health Department until these items have been submitted and completed. Please note that the Health Department has an additional full copy of this file if you wish to review it at any time. Please let us know if you need any further information or assistance on this application. &W Regwrdg, Paay¢Ba A0.400441410 Health Department Assistant Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA o1845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax http://www.townofnorthandover.com healthdept@townofnorthandover.com a Whiter Applicant Yellow - Health Pink - Treasurer F tTownfi of NorthtAr dovef . Health Department Date•z l 7lel Location: (Indicate Address, if Residential, or Na of Busin s) Check #: � f . T.y�e of Permit or License: (Circle) k Animal/', $ Dumpster $ Food Service - Type: $ ➢ Funeral Directors $ Massage Establishment: $ '': .➢ Massage Practice $ O ai (Ser«�� Hauler r ff $ z:ecreational Camp $ ➢ SEPTIC PERMITS: ❑ Septic - Soil Testing $ O Septic - Design Approval $ ❑ Septic Disposal Works Construction (DWG) $ �9'' ❑ Septic Disposal Works Installers (DWI) $ i. v Sun tanning $ .. ➢ Swimming Pool $ Tobacco $ ` ➢ TrasllSolid Waste Hauler $ ➢ Well Construction $ OTHER: ndicate) /// r 'U" l ,U Health Agent Initials Whiter Applicant Yellow - Health Pink - Treasurer PIERCE, DAVIS & PERRITANO, LLP ` Town. of North Andover Hea. De' Dat: Type Reference 1/20/2006 Bi11 Checking Account - Copy y^' 2/17/2006 Original Amt. Balance Due Discount 5-1.00 51.00 Check Amount IVSD FEB � 1 2006 TO1Vc t 'OVER HEALI—rs �T_ 11157 Payment 51.00 51.00 51.00 r • � Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone Web Site -. www.townofnorthandover.com E -Mail - healthdeotCrDtownofnorthandover.com 978.688.8476 - Fax Due upon receipt Invoice No. 1/20/2006 Bill To PIERCE, DAVIS & PERRIfANO Address Attn: John Davis 10 Winthrop Square Boston MA 02110 Phone 617.350.0950 Fax E -Mail Deposit Received $0.00 Invoice Subtotal $51.00 Tax Rate Invoice Total $51.00 Total Amount Due $51.00 Amount Paid Received by: i + ED _ FEg. 2:..2.OQ6 _ _ .... 3QVYalN 1 N0RTHANUCAI1ER DEPART --- ,-_ _—..._ —_ Received by: HEALTH ,. ... _ _....... ., _ .._ .. -. _ ..._ _ .__... _. .-...__... .. __ ..T __._ _. _ _ . _.. .__ . .... .._ _ _ . ._ .. !signature: Print Name: _._._ _...._..._-...... --- --- ---------- + _. __.._ .._....... ....... ...... -_...._ _ .. ' _. _......... ...... Tax: $0.00 w Total? Thanks for letting us serve you! 0 L I North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone We�te -- wwwtown ofnorthandover. com E-maii hea"hde t townofnorthandover.com 978.688.8476 - Fax Due upon receipt ...once No. _ BillTo PIERCE AVIS p 1"?OL 006 Address Attn:ERRITANp John Davis 10 Winthro S Bostonuare ' M— A_ 02110 Phone 617-350 0950 Fax E -Mail deposit Received Invoice Subtotal 0.00 Tax Rate ��``------ _51.00 Invoice Total ---- _ Town of North Andover Invoice No. 12/9/2005 400 Osgood Street Bill To Albert P. Manzi, III 62/ lComplete File Copy of 101 Cricket Lane Address Attorney At Law North Andover, MA 01845 24 Main Street 978.688.9540 - Phone North Andover, MA 01845 Web Site - www.townofnorthandover.com Phone 978-681-6618 Fax 978-681-6628 E -Mail - hoalthd;pt(cDtownofnorthandover.com E -Mail MManzi@Manzilaw.net — 978.688.8476 - Fax Deposit Received $0.00 Received by: Invoice Subtotal $51.00 Due upon receipt Tax Rate S:i gn _atyre: . ��Pih�Name: __ Invoice Total $51.00 Total Amount Due $51.00 Amount Paid Date Description 62/ lComplete File Copy of 101 Cricket Lane Received by: S:i gn _atyre: . ��Pih�Name: __ ------ Subtotal Tax __$51.00 __$Q.00 Total �-00 Thanks for letting us serve you I DelleChiaie, Pamela From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:54 AM To: Bellavance, Curt Cc: Sawyer, Susan Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Importance: High Hello Curt, Susan asked me to let you know that Mark Rees sent over a revised Disclosure form which indicated the following comments: "Susan Sawyer, her staff or contractors employed by the Town of North Andover shall not conduct any inspections at 101 Cricket Lane. Community Development Director will arrange for another Town's inspector to conduct all future inspections at this site. Upon review of the file, the status is that this property location needs the following work done to be considered as having a completed, acceptable septic system in the Town of North Andover (these are standards that all septic systems in Town must comply with): 1. A Final Grade Inspection needs to be completed - this includes checking that the site complies with the Final As Built plan, as well as being Loamed and Seeded and covered according to the approved plan. This inspection needs to be requested by Joseph R. (Buddy) Watson, the septic installer hired by Mr. & Mrs. Hendley. If he needs to be contacted for any reason, he can be reached at: 978.475.3262; Address: 43 Lowell Junction Road, Andover, MA 01810. 2. An Installation Certification Form needs to be submitted to the Health Department by the engineer completed and signed by both the engineer and the installer certifying proper installation of the system. 3. A Final "As Built" plan needs to be submitted by the engineer Note: A Certificate of Compliance will not be issued by the Health Department until these items have been submitted and completed. Please note that the Health Department has an additional full copy of this file if you wish to review it at any time. Please let u's know if you need any further information or assistance on this application. 8asf R¢gaods, PAiw¢ew Da'610 lliaio Health Department Assistant Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA o1845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax http://www.townofnorthandover.c6m healthdept@townofnorthandover.com TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER. O< NORTH Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES 3? •`�'- ° HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 swCHU 978.688.9540 — Phone Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS 978.688.8476 — FAX Public Health Director E-MAIL: healthdepttrtownofnorthandover.com WEBSITE: http://www.towngfiorthandover.com TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER SEPTIC DISPOSAL SYSTEM - INSTALLATION CERTIFICATION The undersigned hereby certify that the Sewage Disposal System ( ) constructed; ( ) repaired; by located at (Print Name) /a/ � (Installation Address) was installed in conformance with the North Andover Board of Health approved plan, originally dated and last Revised on , with a design flow of gallons per day. The materials used were in conformance with those specified on the approved plan; the system was installed in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 15.000, Title 5 and local regulations, and the final grading agrees substantially with the approved plan. All work is accurately represented on the As -built which has been submitted to the Board of Health. Bed inspection date: Final inspection date: Installer: And - Print Name Engineer: And - Print Name Engineer Representative (Signature) And - Print Name Engineer Representative (Signature) And - Print Name (Signature) Date: (Signature) Date: l:..ETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, North Andover Health Department 400 Osgood Street North Andover, NIA 01345 978.633.9540 - Phone 973.633.3476 - Fax healthdept!a.townofnorthandover.com - E-mail w•ww.townofnorthandover.com - Website AORTH O� O Ot�we 16 CQC »IG. f WIfM � AC Hus��„�5 Page / of TO: X Zlzl," DATE:X64"?, COMPANY• pp FROM: Pamela DelleChiaie, Health Department Assistant Phone: RE: Xe/ Fax: A1119 o91J SIGNED: C� We are sendingyou: OCo o Letter OPlans Cher (fill in below Y PY .f i% These are transmitted as checked below: Z. OAppfinelavNoted > OForReviewandconuneid y OSubm4 copiesfor Y OAsRReg�/uested Y OFor Your Use dist 256Re ubW Y OResubmit copiesfor Y OForAppiv aal aPPtvW REMARKS: ��� �:�GZ%''�J G� � L2�m�-- may✓ COPY TO:� COPY TO: SIGNED: C� COPY TO: SearchBug People Finder - Lid ing Details for: Hendley North Andove US W Hendley 101 Crickett Ln North Andover, MA 018454837 Current Phone Number, Address and Address History Available for W Hendley Find Old School Friend W Hendley at Reunion.com Map of North Andover, MA 978-258-7086 update/remove Navigate the map Click anywhere on the map to center on a point and use the arrows to move in any direction. NW ii1AR is V�"' q�` �g�Dt ICarltor) E E QF v 02005 NlapQuest.com, Inc.; 02005 NAVTE(Q3 gyp S SE Printable Map Zoom Level Map Size OEip 0 pEl ❑ ❑ A&+ SHRINK RESET EXPAND Click anywhere on map to center on that point Click here for driving directions Search Resources Nearby Businesses Restaurants Hotels & Motels Airports Auto Repair & Service Banks Department Stores Night clubs Movie Theaters More... Can't find them in the White Pages? Try searching Public Records for hard -to -find phone numbers and addresses. Page 1 of 2 Sponsors PEOPLE SEARCH Powered by Intallus First Name Last Name http://kevdb.infospace.com/ 1_2LSSU9DOKZ588G info.sbuglwpldetaillkevdb?KCFG=... 4/28/2006 04126/2006 09:33 97868884^ HEALTH PAGE 02103 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER" , Offyce of (a UNITY p.VEEOPMENT AND SERVICES HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANi DOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01$45 978.688.9540 —'Phone Susan X. Sawyer, REHS/RS 978.688.8476 - FAX Public Health Director E-MAIL: healthdoot a2townohdrthandov0 WE8S1TE_h=://www townafnort, andovex.com TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER SEPTIC DISPOSAL SYSTEM - INSTALLATION CERT CATION The undersigned hereby certify that the Sewage Disposal System ( ) constructed; ( ) repaired; M located at 1491" gK/ "g (Installation Address) was installed in, confomunce with the North Andover Board of Health approved plan, originally dated /O and last Revised on 11 �"Lg x/03 with a design flow of !fid® gallons per day. The materials used were in conformance with those speciaerl on the apparoved pian; the system was installed in accordance with the provisions of 310 CUR 15.000, Title 5 and local regulations, and the final grading agrees substantially with the approved plan. All work is accurately represented on the As -built which has been submitted to the Board. of Health. Had inspection date: D r3 Final inspection date: 61- - Enbleer Representative (Signature) And - Frim Name Engloaer Represen ve (Signature) D12�-6'AS- I C- - And - Print Name Installer: (Signature) Date: C� And - Prin ane Ea ineer: .� �_ ..., ...._...(Signature) .. _. •. _... � Date; __...� ... 106 .......__..........� _.... An rpt N 04/28/2006 09:33 9786809 ;`, HEALTH PAGE 02/03 '['1'Wl'�F NORTHAND1Q►�7EIt " 4fi{P IA ofilce of comMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVVICFIS o �:."• "' �� HEALTH I)EPARTMENT 400 GSGooD STREET NORTH ANI)OVER, MIA,SSACHUSETTS 01945 978.688.9540 Phone SUS90 y. Sawyer, REH51115 978.688.8476 - FAX Public Healtj Director EMAIL: hd townaTii ar�dov .Com w HSIT>r;,1 1*1 +',WRotirorth. ovve . m 'OWN OF NOR12 ANDOVER SEPTIC DXSpOS,AL SXSTEM - INSTALLATION CERTIMCATIt)►N The undersigned hereby certify that the Sewage Disposal System ( ) coxlstructed; ( ) repaired; ty Gr/y .sa � (Print Name) located at % % i+C,/ (Installation Address) was metalled in conforms= with the North Andover Dowd of Health approved plan, orighWly dated _).(/1-_''� % � and last Revised on AL", /03 , with a design flow of 'KIA10 ganow per day, The materials used were in confcormance with those specified on the approved plan; the system was installed in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMt. 15.000, Title 5 and Racal regulation, and the final gtadi 4 agrees substantially with the approved plan. All work is accmtely represented on. they As -built which bas been submitted to the Board of Health. lied inspection date: © i . Ci )ramal inspection date: >✓ ee- R.emsentative (Signature) dr-- - LAS And - Print Name Englocer Repmeseo ve (Signature) Qa--16gm*.4 tcvr And - Print Name r-- lnstailer:'� (Signamte) Date:J�x / Jos Ana - PrinrNwne ........._....,....,........_ Date: 44 ted' An pint N Land Engineering , & Environmental Services, LLC _ CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS 130 MIDDLESEX ROAD, SUITE 15 TYNGSBORO, MA 01879 TELEPHONE (978) 649-4642 / FAX (978)649-0981 TO /� n xl aT1i /�'NDoYG SL O fr2 p e f 7�f LIEU EW W unkRISI UOUMR. Q,An L/_ ZTi `©C "a Ho .. I ATT[h TIOM AL l v 1'q1vV' As requested ❑ For review and comment TOWN ti) - ,; ;�" ! i­..-;,U\iER WE ARE SENDING YOU O Attached O Under separate cover via WE4i + ` ftfi636fi 4in items: O Shop drawings O Prints O Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter O Change order ❑ COPIES DATE No. DESCRIPTION ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ N Zf3106 lG S osflL �' - sTi��Gf3-77aN �'£ 77 C177�!✓ THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ ❑ Resubmit copies for approval O Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints 19 O PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO / SIGNED: Dov':'j L E CS 04/28!2606 09:33 97868884?c HEALTH PAGE 02/03 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Offlee lee of COMMUNITY DVvEL�OPMFNT AND SERRVCCES Q HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGwD STREET NORT14 AWOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 978.6$8.9540.: Phone Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS 978.68$.8476 - FAX Public Health Director EMAIL: hemi dga0Wrk9fp0dandover.com ' M(E85lTE, a * www townofnorkhgndove_am TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER SEPTIC DISPOSAL SYSTEM - INSTALLATION C'LRTMCATION The undersigned hereby caertify that the Sewage Disposal System ( ) constructed; ( ) repaired; by located at ,�"� %�JC!."'� f'� •/�'� _, _ (Installation Address) was installed in, conformance with tbo North Andover Board of Health aMoved plan, origuWly dged /0 -3 and last Revised on ,1l ®'2-�' �� , with a design flow of gallons per dory. The materials used were inconform= with those specified on the approved plan; the system was installed in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 15.000, Title 5 and local regulations, and the final &Wing agrees substantlally with the approved plan. All work is accmtely represented on the As -built which bas been submitted to the Board of Health. Bed lmVeetion date: 0 f a Final inspection date: RBpm"ntative 41,A -S E - And - Print Name . T �� � � (� � �z, Engkoa Reprase ve (Signature) L�� gm . ,C- , r And - Pt int Name Installer. Jos -t . And - PrinfNwne pIngicer (Signature) Date: ZU. An uk N Town of North Andover Office of the Health Department Community Development and Services Division 400 OSGOOD STREET North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/ RS Public Health Director 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax C��r�rc�� o�' C09111DrrANCE As of May 1, 2006 This is to cert that the individual subsurface duposal system was ('uffy W epaired by: Joseph R (Buddy) Watson At: 101 Cricket .Gane North Andover, W q 01845 Yfas been instaffed in accordance with the provisions of Title V of the State Sanitary Code and with the North Andover 0oard of W eafth regulations. The Issuance of this certificate shall not 6e construed as a guarantee that the system Miff function satisfactorify. Curt Beffavance Community (Development Director BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION -REPORT ---- TIME 06/28/2006 16:51 NAME HEALTH FAX 9786888476 TEL 9786888476 SER.# 000B4J120960 DATEJIME 06/28 16:50 FAX N0./NAME 816173507760 DURATION 00:01:12 PAGE{S} 06 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM North A glover Health Department 1600 Osgood Street Building 20, Suite 2.36 North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone 478.688.8476 — Fax ®althde town o handove .com E-mail ww.tow afnorth dover.w - Website COMPANY: Phone: Fax: Letter of Transmittal Page. / I of DATE; FROM: RE! Pamela We Are se, A7# you: D Copy of Luer 17pIgns O Other tf'll in ,below) These are transmitted as checked below: ➢ ➢ lJrw > > L7rw"waidav~ >' ➢ Qkrrar& t Health Department Assistant ➢ 17Aw*& North Andover Health Department 1600 Osgood Street Building 20, Suite 2-36 North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 — Fax healthdept a@townofnorthandover.com - E-mail www.townofnorthandover.com - Website Letter of Transmittal Page 1 of _ 'per COCMICMlWKM � 7' T0: 40J6_z"""6 DATE: COMPANY: FROM: Pamela DelleWaie, Health Department Assistant Phone: 'VX1� RE: D/ Fax: X We are sealing you: O Copy of Letter 0P/Wu O Other (fill in below) These are transmitted as checked below: ➢ O asNofed ➢ IPaqu sthrl ➢ OAslteF" ➢ 0 rArud ➢ ar+arReWwadanmsit ➢ OkrrarLim ➢ L7pwm wo api sfbr q pv&d ➢ Mufr R apsfiira&t. REMARKS: COPY TO: COPY TO: SIGNED: X COPY TO: 8� � po cocwc wewrcn . 1'e �® Town of North Andover BUILDING DEPARTMENT Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 Re: 101 Cricket Lane Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hendley, June 9, 2006 Our records indicate that your property may need a final inspection. Please be advised that in order to permit occupancy for the property at 101 Cricket Lane a final inspection by the Building Department is in order. Please call the office to set up an appointment for the final inspection. A Certificate of Occupancy can be issued once the final inspection is documented. Thank you for your attention in this matter Sincerely, Gerald A. Brown, Inspector of Buildings Cc: Curt Bellavance, Director CD&S Co►nmunity Development Division,1600 Osgood Street, North Andover, Mossochusetts 01845 Phone 978.688.9545 Fox 978.688.9542 Weh www.townofnorth nndover.corn 0. Town of North Andover '! Office of the Health Department Coni mvtnity Development and Services Division 400 OSGOOD STREET North .Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Susan Y. Sawyer, RENS/ RS Public Health Director 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax C'�ER7I�'IGA2E OAF CO�L2'L.I,/�NCE AS Of: May 1, 2006 This is to cert that the infiividualsu6surface disposaf system was Tuffy 1' epaired by: Joseph X. (Buddy) Watson At: 101 Cricket .Gane 9VorthAndover, 911,9 01845 Was been installed in accordance with the provisions of Title V of the State Sanitary Code and with the North Andover Board ofxeafth regulations. The Issuance of this certfifficate shall not be construed as a guarantee that the system will function satisfactorily. Curt Bellavance Community Development Director BOARD OF APPLAL S 688-9541 BUILOING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNTNG 688-9535 rJ'rr -401 ratab MJ: J; 'J [Ub88U4 "- HEAL IM T r'€itaC Uzi Ud W TOWN OF NORTH ANWV Office Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANbSERVICUS ti KKA LTR I►EP.AR"UNT 400 OSGOOD STREET " NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 978,688,9540 Phone Susan V. Sawyer, REIN' al " ' 978.688.8476 — FAX Public H ealtfi Director E-MAIL hg�;ice, to �nafit�rtha�ndav�r.cam • W,�SSITE• hma�yv_v v�v,Gpwna�nQrt �nd�+ver q��n TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER . SEPTIC DISPOSAL SYSTEM A INSTALLATION TION CERT CA'iTION The undersigned hereby certify that the Sewage Disposal. System ( ) constrwed; ( ) repaired; (l nt Natme) located at le/ efx, ,A (histellation Address) was Med in conformance with the Worth Andover Board of Health approved plan, orionally dated 10 y3 and last Revised on .1 t 12Y 003 , with a design flow of gallor►s pez` day. The materials used. were in Mformamce with those specibaed on the approved plain; the system was j% -tailed in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 15-000;, Title 5 aud l0c81 regulatioft, and the final grsdiM agrees substaxWally with the approved plan. All work is accurately represented on the As -built which has been subrnitted to the Board of Health. Ovid inspection date: 10 1 Final inspection dant B Er ltegent$tiv© (Signature) 4 SPS And - Print Nann;+e ig�lracr htepxc e (SAnature) And - Print Name installer: / _ lam: And - PrEn, inns Mr.:� �,, _ ..., ....._.... _..,....._.... _ ..._._.._...._ _......._....____ __._..._....._.......�_._. _.. le, (Signature) Date: L19 An N Town of North. Andover Office of the Health Department Community Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Heidi Griffin Acting Public Heatt1i Director September 5, 2003 Willis and Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 RE: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane Septic Design Approvals Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley: Telephone (978) 688-9540 Fax (978) 688-9542 Septic design plans dated Revised October 15, 2002, for the aforementioned address were submitted to the Board of Health for design approvals on October 21, 2002. There was a technical deficiency with regard to the retaining walls bottom elevation not being included on the design plans. Mrs. Sandra Starr spoke with Norse Environmental on November 1, 2002 anal requested the addition of the retaining wall elevation. Revised design plans dated November 1, 2002 were submitted and subsequently approved on November 4, 2002. Verbal approvals were granted to Norse Environmental regarding the septic design plans with written approval to follow. The septic design plans dated September 23, 2002, Revised October 15, 2002 and November 1, 2002, are currently approved and signed. You may pick up copies of the signed plan at the Health Department at you earliest convenience. Sint rely, Br'Brie6 J. LaGrasse Health Inspector Cc: Ray Santilli, Assistant Town Manager Heidi Griffin, Acting Public Health Director File BOARD OP APPEALS 688-954I BLM DING 6889545 CONSERVATION 6889530 HEAL'T'H 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 0 Town of North Andover BUILDING DEPARTMENT Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 Re: 101 Cricket Lane Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hendley, June 9, 2006 Our records indicate that your property may need a final inspection. Please be advised that in order to permit occupancy for the property at 101 Cricket Lane a final inspection by the Building Department is in order. Please call the office to set up an appointment for the final inspection. A Certificate of Occupancy can be issued once the final inspection is documented. Thank you for your attention in this matter Sincerely, l�f 9f J� Gerald A. Brown, Inspector of Buildings Cc: Curt Bellavance, Director CD&S Community Development Division, 1600 Osgood Street, North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 'hone 978.688.9545 Fax 978.688.9542 Web www.townofnorthandover.com .TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 06/2812006 16:28 NAME HEALTH FAX 9786688476 TEL 9786888476 SER.# 000B4J120960 DATEJIME 06128 16:28 FAX NO./NAME 816173500950 DURATION 00:00:00 PAGE{S} 00 RESULT BUSY STANDARD MODE BUSY: BUSYMO RESPONSE North Andover Health Department 1600 Osgood Street Building 20, Suite 2-86 North Andover, MA 01 845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 — Fox hoalthd-ojt a.townofnor$handovor.com - E-mail Mtww.townofnortI Waver.com - Website Letter of Transmittal Page / of --05��j We are sending you: J Copp of ietter a Plans 0 Other jirll in below) These are transmitted as checked below: ➢ O WbW ➢ pmago► ➢ L7fw 3> L7farl"wand A L1As a► D Mw rawliz > ,DAA afar 49pvw Of MONT 3409 O F=tea rte. y O9 Town of North Andover `a'•�;,;; :e HEALTH DEPARTMENT ,SSACMUS�t CHECK #: _---�yv� �JDATE: / O% LOCATION: CONTRACTOR NAME: Ac • ' 6,e; Type of Permit or License: (Check box) $ ❑ Animal $ ❑ Body Art Establishment $ ❑ Body Art Practitioner $ ❑ Dumpster $ ❑ Food Service - Type: $ ❑ Funeral Directors $ ❑ Massage Establishment $ ❑ Massage Practice $ ❑ Offal (Septic) Hauler $ ❑ Recreational Camp $ ❑ Sun tanning $ ❑ Swimming Pool $ ❑ Tobacco $ ❑ Trash/Solid Waste Hauler $ ❑ Well Construction $ SEPTIC Sustems: ❑ Septic - Soil Testing $ ❑ Septic - Design Approval $ ❑ Septic Disposal Works Construction (DWC) $ ❑ Septic Disposal Works Installers (DWI) $ ❑ Title 5 Inspector $ ❑ Title 5 Report $ ther: (Indicate) $ Health Agent Initials White - Applicant Yellow - Health Pink - Treasurer TRS=tihJ'=,�1I'_'_;I01I VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 84124126188 10:23 f dAME HEALTH FAX 9786888476 TEL 9786888476 SER. # 808B4J126968 BATE.TIME 84124 10:22 FAX H0. iHAME 8978F816628 DURATIQhJ E�Fl: E71: E�2 PAGE (S 1 8 h RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECP: north Andov_er__Houlth Deogtment 1600 Osgood Street Building 20, Suite 2.36 North Andover, MA 41845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 — Fax ealthde not ortha dover.co . k -mail www jg )fnort ndover tom . Website COMPANY: Pheoe: Fax: aqkmo 16� p� Letter o Trans mittolPage / of rip tee tw-.Gp 9 Swrw15�� DATE: FROM: Pamela DolleChiaie, health Department Assistant We are sending ypu: 0 Copy of Lefiter CP/r ns D Qthertfi!! in below) These are iroasmitted as checked below: � L7,�garorttal�lf�h�pl >Asl�qui►ap� +� Orar4powi r I7lorlwa�n+romrrrt D Olma __ q*rflr WPVPW ➢ O.s apimfar4k North Andover Health_ Department 1600 Osgood Street Building 20, Suite 2-36 North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 — Fax healthdept(cDtownofnorthandover.com - E-mail www.townofnorthandover.com - Website Letter of Transmittal Page / of C t O14 coc.�ac�w�w.cw v� T0: DATE: COMPANY: FROM: Pamela DelleChiaie, Health Department Assistant Phone: RE: Fax: We are sending you: O Copy of Letter O Plans O Other Ifiii in below) These are transmitted as checked below: ➢ L74PvrsrdaslibMd ➢ akr4VV&d ➢ O&vAfynrt mpiwfor ➢ LA6d ➢ C arAft iewadwarn" gga►ard ➢ L7*A W ➢ Orrorrari* ➢ Oscbrit mpnslbrdrt. REMARKS: COPY TO: COPY TO: COPY TO: SIGNED: Curran, Bernadette From: Rubina Hendley [rubinahendley@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 4:04 AM To: cdoherty@andoverliving.com Cc: Santilli, Ray; Daley, Lincoln; Hmurciak, Bill; Curran, Bernadette Subject: [BULK] 120 Cricket Ln, NA Importance: Low Dear Mr Doherty, As displayed above, I have copied this communication to various departments at the Town of North Andover, for reasons that will become evident below. I am co-owner, with my husband Willis, of 101 Cricket Ln, which is the pale grey house diagonally across from #120. Our home, as well as #120, is part of the Walnut Ridge subdivision. I wish to make you aware of a potentially serious problem at #120 that appears to have put a cloud on the title to that property, of which I believe you (or the homeowners) may not be aware. It is similar to a problem that occurred at our property, that affected not just us, but also the homeowner adjacent to us at #115, and cost both sets of homeowners (via our respective RE attorneys) considerable expense and inconvenience to correct. The primary culprits (sadly, there is no better way to describe them) involved in this mess that we faced include the Town of North Andover, the developer(s) of the subdivision, and the land engineers for the subdivision. I have decided to bring the situation to your attention as a result of a series of events over a period of five years that recently culminated in a prospective buyer directly asking me if I was aware of "any problem" with #120. I answered in the affirmative, and whether or not you have a personal or business relationship with any of the public or private entities involved, you and the homeowners, to whom you owe a fiduciary duty, need to know. The situation at #120 has remained both unaddressed, uncorrected, AND concealed for long enough, despite the fact we have alerted officials within the town on numerous occasions both verbally and in writing. Ours were not mere unsupported allegations; they were backed up with full support from documents from the public record for this subdivision, as well as relevant state/local regulations, and confirmed to us by numerous respected RE attorneys, including that for the homeowner who recently contacted me; as well as by other land engineers. Recently, we had two prospective buyers contact us (by initially knocking on our door) regarding properties that are currently for sale in the newer end of our street. Both buyers asked if we would be willing to talk to them about the neighborhood, and we let them know we would be glad to let them have our impressions. One of these buyers was interested in #93 (adjacent to our house), and spoke with my husband; the second in #120, who spoke with me. This latter buyer informed me he had "heard" we had had "problems" that the town had made us correct, at which point I informed him I was only willing to talk to him if he allowed me to place the whole trauma we endured into context, and not based on any gossip, nor piecemeal information he had received. He indicated he was willing to do this because, as he informed me, he wondered why there were three properties (#93, #120, and #144) all remaining unsold for many months in our street, that he did not believe was just due to a depressed market. I informed him that although there were homeowners with potential serious uncorrected problems in the subdivision, our investigations had revealed that #93 and #144 did not appear to be affected, but that # 120 was. I also detailed how unconscionable events within the town (documented incompetence, documented negligence, and our direct exposure to serious ethical misconduct) prevented us from occupying our property for five years, during which we also discovered the town's failure to act upon potentially serious deviations from approved plans/regulations adversely affected other homeowners in this subdivision, of which the developer(s) and various licensed contractors, including the land engineers, are also aware. To cut a long story short, this is the source of the problem that we believe still exists at #120: it involves the septic system grading easement appurtenant to # 110 that is located on # 120. Reasons for the problem: 1. This septic easement is deeded for use by #110 in connection with the installation, repair, and maintenance of the septic system located on #110, and associated grading and re -grading, which may involve the addition and/or movement of soil; 2. A large portion of this septic easement falls right over the existing driveway for #120; 3. Since #110 is at a considerably higher elevation than #120, use of the septic easement as deeded could result in a significant section of the driveway for #120 being submerged/altered, thus making the current access to the garage(s) restricted, or inaccessible; 4. The septic easement for #110, as well as for other properties in Walnut Ridge, were recorded at Northern Essex Registry of Deeds, Plan #13636; this plan being a bare -bones one depicting lot lines and easement locations only, and conveniently excluded actual structures (such as houses, driveways) on any of the lots; 5. It was mandatory for these septic easements to be disclosed and depicted on the Definitive Plan (and other required plans) submitted for evaluation at the pre -approval stage for this subdivision ---for obvious reasons that I will not labor to explain; 6. 5 above was never done by the developer(s), nor their land engineers; 7. Various town depts were aware of the existence of these septic easements, but none questioned why they did not appear on the Definitive Plan; 8. Construction then proceeded at all lots; 9. Numerous septic easements became compromised as a result of ostensibly permanent structures being located on them; 10. Numerous other significant deviations from the so-called approved plans occurred, such as those involving elevations and locations of structures; 11. Numerous significant deviations from accepted land (and septic) engineering practice also occurred; 12. The land engineers, and other licensed contractors, had a professional responsibility to inform/alert various town officials of significant deviations, but there is no public record for many (if not most) of the significant deviations that occurred (however, we directly learnt that one significant'deviation reported to a senior official at the town was concealed by this official); 13. Town officials had a responsibility to ensure the developer(s) and other licensed parties followed approved plans (even though the so-called approved plans were fundamentally flawed by the omission of the septic easements), but instead allowed various significant deviations to remain unaddressed and uncorrected; 14. Town officials were supposed to remain impartial and objective, but we have personal experience and evidence of bias and favoritism towards the developer(s) in particular; 15. We have informed countless officials at the town specifically with regard to the non -disclosure of these easements, and of their being compromised thereafter, but have never received any acknowledgment of any kind to our concerns; these officials included Ms Rosemary Smedile, the Town Manager's office, the former Director of Community Development, various former Directors of Planning, the former Chairman of the Planning Board, the former Building Inspectors, DPW, Health, and Conservation. This communication to you has been at great personal expense to me, since I, more so than my husband, have suffered considerable retaliation at town level. This will, no doubt, continue to be the case, but I remain undaunted. In conclusion, I am glad to report there have been some personnel changes for the better within the town. If you care to follow up the situation at # 120,1 recommend speaking to the new head of the Building dept, Mr Brown, whom I have found to be professional, and considerate. Sincerely, Rubina Hendley Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. Page 1 of 2 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:41 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: FW: Walnut Ridge subdivision fyi -----Original Message ----- From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:32 AM To: Curran, Bernadette Subject: RE: Walnut Ridge subdivision B, I suggest before you do anything with this, that you forward it to Ray. He was designated the point person for all communications regarding 101 Cricket Lane. Susan -----Original Message ----- From: Curran, Bernadette Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:52 PM To: Sawyer, Susan Subject: Walnut Ridge subdivision Importance: Low Hi Susan; Yes, Rubina is back...... If you get a moment, could you look over the below e-mail and let me know the best answer I could provide to her. All the happenings at this address happened long before I came into the picture at ComDev. Not sure if the best advise I can give her is for her to come in and view the files herself, or if perhaps I should not encourage her to come anywhere near the office??? not sure.... Please advise... Thanks.. Bernadette -----Original Message ----- From: Rubina Hendley [mailto:rubinahendley@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:40 PM To: Curran, Bernadette Subject: [SPAM] Walnut Ridge subdivision Importance: Low Dear Mr Curran: I am the co-owner of 101 Cricket Lane in the above subdivision. 4/24/2008 Page 2 of 2 I would appreciate receiving the following information described below with respect to the above subdivision, which I requested on numerous occasions, both in person and in writing, to your predecessor, who declined for reasons never explained to provide to me. Please note, there are deeded septic grading easements for nine of the ten new - construction properties, appurtenant to each and located on the adjacent property, Plan #13636, recorded on Dec 16, 1999. I also have a copy of the subdivision's Definitive Plan #13447, recorded on April 18, 1999, and this plan does not reference any of the septic easements presumably because, according to the date mentioned above, said easements had not been devised, or disclosed. I double-checked at the Lawrence registry of deeds for an update to the Definitive plan that depicts these easements, but had no luck finding one. I assume a Definitive plan exists depicting these easements, and I would appreciate any relevant information so that I can get a copy from the registry. I would also like to be directed to which public files for the subdivision (planning, board of health, building, etc) have the information regarding the submission and approval processes for these easements. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Rubina Hendley Ahhh... imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. 4/24/2008 /�i M�z. TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER OFFICE OF TOWN MANAGER 120 MAIN STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01.845 Mark H. Rees Town Manager Willis and Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley: January 8, 2003 /�,O�-Vr4 Telephone (978) 688-9510 FAX (978) 688-9556 I am in receipt of your various correspondences listing your concerns regarding 101/,Cricket Lane. After speaking to appropriate staff, I will attempt to respond to your issues. • You claim that Mrs. Hendley has been singled out by Town personnel and that correspondence has been addressed solely to her. In speaking with staff, it appears that a majority of their interactions and conversations over the past few months have been strictly with Mrs. Hendley. A letter sent to Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director, dated November 12, 2002, was signed solely from Mrs. Hendley. However, in response to your concern, staff has been notified that all correspondence regarding this issue will be addressed, in the future, to both of you as joint property owners. • You state that you have been trying to receive a final sign -off on the interior sprinkler system from the fire inspector since mid-August. Per regulations, the fire inspector is waiting for a set of prints and calculations for the sprinkler system before granting final approval. Approximately a year ago, he conducted a flow test on the system but still required the appropriate paperwork before final approval. The burden to produce the required documents is on the installer through the property owners. In order to assist in expediting this issue, Lieutenant Melnikas, in lieu of the required paperwork, is willing to conduct a "walk-through" in order to visually examine the sprinkler system. If all appears proper to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, Lieutenant Melnikas will provide the final sign -off on the interior sprinkler system. Please contact his office at 978-688-9530 to schedule a mutually convenient time. • Your next concern was in regards to the inspection of the gas appliances. The inspector had asked your plumber the location of the name plate on the gas appliance in order to see if it had an approved testing stamp on it. Your plumber informed the inspector that he could not find the approved stamp. The inspector then asked for you, as the homeowners, to provide literature on the product to research it further. During the interim, the inspector contacted the state regulatory agency, as he did not recognize the manufacture of the gas appliance, in order to see if it had a product approval number which it did not. The inspector was also informed that the state had discovered that this particular manufacturer had not been keeping their approvals current. In the meanwhile, the regulatory agency instructed the inspector to enforce the code until the state decided on what do with this issue. As you indicated in your letter, you called the regulatory agency on more than one occasion to verify that the gas inspector was telling the truth. When the inspector received confirmation from the regulatory agency that he could sign off on your gas inspection upon receipt of proper testing data, he did so. This coincided with Mr. Hendley's visit to the inspector. • You applied for and received a Homeowner License Exemption on May 24, 2001. The exemption states in part that the homeowner assumes responsibility for compliance with the State Building Code and other applicable codes, by-laws, rules and regulations. The homeowner also certifies that he/she understands the Town of North Andover Building Department's minimum inspection procedures and requirements and that he/she will comply with said procedures and requirements. Typically, a person/firm engaged in constructing a dwelling must have a construction supervisor's license, unless a homeowner constructing their own dwelling receives a homeowner exemption, which you received. However, this exemption means that the homeowner must abide by the same regulations as a licensed contractor/builder. Staff informs me that the septic system design for your lot was not approved until November 4, 2002 and a Disposal Construction Works permit has not been obtained by a septic installer licensed in North Andover as of the date of this letter. As such, a request for a Certificate of Compliance is premature. It is my understanding that you had a subcontractor that was not licensed in the Town start working on retaining wall (a component of the approved septic design). You began this work without the required Disposal Construction Works permit. The health inspector went to the site and informed you that, since you did not have the proper permit to do the work, all construction activity must stop immediately. Furthermore, the inspector briefed you to have a licensed installer obtain the proper permit. This type of septic system design is a common occurrence in North Andover and numerous installers perform this type of work on a routine basis. The Health Department is prepared to assist you in accomplishing this task. They will be forwarding to you.a list of properly licensed installers. Although the season for this type of work to be accomplished has past, the Health Department will assist you and your installer in obtaining a variance to complete the project. Your filing a complaint with the Department of Environmental Protection against the Health Department staff is within your discretion. However it is uncertain whether the Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction in the matter. If you believe that the actions of J Q TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER OFFICE OF TOWN MANAGER 120 MAIN STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 Mark H. Rees Town Manager December 9, 2002 Mr. Willis and Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley: Telephone (978) 688-9510 FAX (978) 688-9556 I am in receipt of your correspondence dated November 22, 2002 regarding your serious concerns at the Walnut Ridge Subdivision. I will try to answer your concerns in the order in which you presented them in your correspondence. 1. Ms. Hendley allegedly being singled out: In speaking with my staff, it appears as though the majority of their conversations have been with Ms. Hendley regarding concerns at your lot. As such, my staff addressed and/or spoke with Ms. Hendley as she, not you, frequented the offices at Community Development on a regular basis during the last few months and served as the primary contact for your concerns. However, we will note your concern that some of this correspondence has been directly addressed to Mr. Hendley and in the future will be addressed to both of you as property owners. 2. Exam 1p e #1: (Mark, please have Andy Melnikas respond to these allegations as he is the fire inspector who was in contact with the Hendleys for town) 3. Exam lie #2: The town's plumbing and gas inspector, Mr. James Diozzi indicated that he performed an inspection with the plumber, Mr. John Donovan. Mr. Diozzi indicated that when he went to check the temperature at the shower valves the plumber informed him that the vales were not a pressure balancing valve as required by code and that he could not get the water temperature down to 112 degrees as required by code. Allegedly, you as the homeowners had installed a temperature reducing device which still did not get the temperature down to the required 112 degrees. The plumber then removed the existed valves and installed the proper ones whereby Mr. Diozzi signed off on the plumbing. In regards to Mr. Diozzi's inspection of the gas system, Mr. Diozzi asked the plumber where the name plate was located on the gas appliance in order to see if it had an approved testing stamp on it. The plumber informed Mr. Diozzi that he could not find the approved stamp so Mr. Diozzi asked the plumber to have you, as the homeowners, provide literature on the product to research it further. During the interim, Mr. Diozzi contacted the state as he did not recognize the manufacture of the gas appliance in order to see it had a product approval number, which it did not. Mr. Diozzi was also informed that the state was in the process of finding out that this particular manufacturer had not been keeping their approvals current and they were going to have a meeting with the manufacturer and in the meanwhile the state instructed Mr. Diozzi to enforce the code until the state decided on what do with this issue. As you yourself indicated in your letters, you had called the state on more than one occasion to doublecheck that the gas inspector was telling the truth. When Mr. Diozzi received confirmation from the state that he could sign off on your gas inspection upon receipt of proper testing data, he did so. Also, in regards to this matter is important to point out that both you and your husband applied for and received a Homeowner License Exemption on May 24, 2001. The exemption states in part that the undersigned "homeowner" assumes responsibility for compliance with the State Building Code and other applicable codes, by-laws, rules and regulations. The undersigned homeowner certifies that he/she understands that the Town of North Andover Building Department minimum inspection procedures and requirements and he/she will comply with said procedures and requirements. Typically, a person/firm engaged in constructing a dwelling must have a construction supervisor license, unless a homeowner constructing there own dwelling receives a homeowner exemption, which you both did. However, this exemption means that the homeowner must abide by the same regulations as a licensed contractoribuilder. 4. Septic System Installation: The septic system design for your lot was not approved until November 4, 2002 and a Disposal Construction Works permit has not been obtained or paid for by a septic installer licensed in North Andover as of this date. As such, a request for a Certificate of Compliance is slightly premature at this time. It is my understanding that you had a subcontractor start working on retaining wall (a component of the approved septic design) who was not licensed in the Town, and you began this work without a Disposal Construction Works permit. Mr. LaGrasse went to the site and informed you that you did not have a permit to do the work and must stop all construction activity immediately. Furthermore, Mr. LaGrasse instructed you to have a licensed installer obtain the proper permit and pay the associated fees. This type of septic system design is a common occurrence in North Andover and numerous installers perform this type of work on a routine basis. The installer you refer to in your correspondence to Sandra Starr dated November 22, 2002 indicated to Mr. LaGrasse that he knew the history of this site and the relationship that you as homeowners had with the previous installer, and due to this history they were now respectfully declining to perform further work on your property. In a letter to you dated (Brian, rill in blanks and give me a copy of the letter to attach) you were both aware this wall was part of the septic design and commenced the work anyway, with blatant and deliberate disregard for the Massachusetts General Laws and the North Andover Septic Regulations. At this point, the town can no longer have Mr. LaGrasse and/or Ms. Starr continue to perform inspections due to your perceptions of "mishandling, incompetence and misconduct..." and due to the fact that your letter states you have filed a formal complaint against my staff to the Department of Environmental Protection. As such, in order to ensure to you that we are providing a neutral environment, we will have the town's outside septic consultant, Mr. John Noonan, perform inspections at your site. Unfortunately, as Mr. Noonan is not an employee of the town, there will be fees associated with his inspection costs which you will be responsible form, however, I believe this is a solution which will best work to rectify any allegations of incompetence from my staff. 2.10: continued 248 CMR: BOARD OF STATE EXA:�TRS OF PLUMBERS AND GAS FITTERS A central type automatic temperature control valve may be used in lieu of individual automatic mixing valves, provided the temperature control valve permits a maximum temperature of 112°F to the hot water supply of the shower control during all periods when showers are in use. A thermometer is required in the outlet piping of the central control for inspection and adjustment of temperature. Check valves are required on the hot and cold inlets to the central control valve. The automatic temperature control valve described above is a secondary control for hot water supply to shower stations and is in addition to primary control used to maintain the water temperature in the domestic hot water system. When the temperature in the hot water supply piping to shower stations is controlled as described above, individual shower controls may be two -valve type, single valve or any acceptable mixing valve. 3. All automatic temperature control devices shall be adjusted by the installing plumber, prior to the Final Inspection (248 CMR 2.04(11)(x)), to deliver water at a safe and useable temperature, but in no case to exceed 110°F to 112°F. (9) Food -Waste Grinder Units. (a) Residential or Domestic Food -Waste (',cinder -Waste Outlets. Domestic food -waste grinder units shall be connected to a drain of not less than 1'/2 inches in diameter. (b) Commercial Food -Waste Grinder Outlets. Commercial food -waste grinder units shall be connected to a drain of sufficient size to serve the unit, but in no case connected to a drain of less than two inches in diameter. Commercial food -waste -grinder units shall be connected and trapped separately from other fixtures or compartments. They shall be separately connected to the stack or main drain. (c) Water Supply Required. All food -waste grinder units shall be provided with an adequate supply of water in sufficient flow rate to insure proper functioning of the unit. (d) Grinder Units Not to Be Connected with Grease Interceptors. No food -waste grinder unit shall be connected so as to discharge through a grease interceptor. (10) Drinking Fountains (a) , Desi: and Construction. A drinking fountain shall conform to the listed ANSI standard in Table I in 248 CMR 2.06. (b) Protection of Water Supply. Stream projectors shall be assembled to provide an orifice elevation as specified by ANSI Air Gaps in Plumbing Systems and ANSI Backflow Preventers In Plumbing Systems. See Table 1 in 248 CMR 2.06. (11) Floor Drains and Area Drains. (a) Floor Drains. 1. Floor drains shall have integral or separate traps having a minimum water seal of three inches and shall be provided with removable strainers. The floor drain shall be so constructed that it can be readily cleaned, and the drain inlet shall be easily accessible at all times. Floor drains subject to backflow shall be provided with back water valves. 2. Size of Floor Drains. Floor drains shall be of a size to serve efficiently the purpose for which they are intended, but the outlet pipe shall not be less than two inches in nominal diameter. 3. $over Installation nnA Protection Asainst Loss of Trap al. All floor drains when installed shall be of an approved design and shall be installed at a grade to permit floor drainage to it from all directions. Floor drains, which in the opinion of the local plumbing inspector may be subject to evaporation, shall be installed with an approved, readily accessible automatic trap priming device. 4. Hazardous Wastes. Floor drains which may receive hazardous waste shall comply with 248 CMR 2.13. 8/9/96 248 CMR - 68 Page 1 of 1 Nicetta, Robert From: Santilli, Ray Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:54 AM To: Nicetta, Robert Subject: RE: 101 Cricket Lane That's fine. Enjoy your new year holiday and time off. J` Santini Assistant Town Manager & Human Resources Director -----Original Message ----- From: Nicetta, Robert Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:54 AM To: Santilli, Ray Subject: RE: 101 Cricket Lane Good Morning Ray — I have spoken to Jimmy Diozzi and he will make the meeting. I will be on vacation January 2nd, however I will notify Mike McGuire to attend as he is the Inspector of Record and has been involved from the start of the Hendley project. Please let me know if this does not meet with your approval. ----Original Message ----- From: Santilli, Ray Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:29 AM To: Griffin, Heidi; Dolan, Chief William; Melnikas, Lt. Andrew; Nicetta, Robert; Starr, Sandy; Lagrasse, Brian; Diozzi, Jimmy; Parrino, Julie Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Town Manager Mark Rees would like to have a meeting with all involved in the permitting and approval processes for 101 Cricket Lane (The Hendleys). The meeting will be on Thursday, January 2, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. in the meeting room at Town Hall. Please bring with you any appropriate file(s) you may need to refer to. Thanks `✓harry SanM Assistant Town Manager & Human Resources Director 12/26/02 Nicktta. Robert To: Griffin, Heidi Cc: D'Agata, Donna Mae Subject: 101 Cricket Lane — Plumbing Inspector Complaint Good Morning Heidi — My e-mail is not working and as a result this correspondence will be given to the Administrative Assistant for distribution to you. Attached is Plumbing / Gas Inspector Diozzi's report on the referenced complaint. Also included is a copy of the applicable plumbing / gas code on appliances. It is evident by Mr. Diozzi's report that he was protecting the health and safety of Mr. and Mrs.Hendley and Family by not allowing a code water temperature over 112 degrees, which would have caused scalding of persons taking showers or bathing. I am of the opinion that Mr. Diozzi followed correct proceedure checking with the proper State Authorities for the product approval number when he did not recognize the Manufacturer of the appliance. It also is not the failure of the Pumbing / Gas Inspector to sign off if the State Board of Examiners of Plummers and Gas Fitters did not have up to date product approval numbers available. Once again the Inspector was doing his job. For your information, I have included a memorandum from Mr. Rick Welch removing himself as Builder of Record for the 101 Cricket Lane residence after his sale of the property to Mr. and Mrs. Hendley. Additionally, I have attached a Homeowner License Exemption applied for and issued to Willis & Rubina Hendley on May 24, 2001. The exemption states in part "The undersigned "homeowner" assumes responsibility for compliance with the State Building Code and other Applicable codes, by-laws, rules and regulations. The undersigned "homeowner' certifies that he/she understands the Town of North Andover Building Department minimum inspection proceedures and requirements and that he/she will comply with said proceedures and requirements". . A person/firm engaged in constructing a dwelling must have a construction supervisor license. A home owner constructing there own dwelling, with a Home Owners Exemption must abide by the same regulations as a licensed contractor/builder. I am of the opinion that the above compliant has been addressed the same as a licensed contractor inspection and the exemption does not grant deviation from the applicable codes. PLUMBING & GAS INSPECTORS 1111%Z W S A --r- A --r- ac Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2002/January 2003 Published by the International Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (I PMO) Gordon MacEwan, Editor Copyright 2002 1AFOiO, !G FOUNDED 1926 �ejNO $ MECHAN�Cp�O o WELCOME We welcome you to the second issue of the Inspectors Newsletter! As you can tell after read- ing this, there has been a great deal going on in our profession the past two months. We're always looking for news, so if you have any, please feel free to call Gordon MacEwan (IAPMO-New England office) at (781) 834-8900. Also, if you missed the first issue, call that number for a copy. CONTINUING EDUCATION CLASSES SOLD OUT The response to the continuing education program has been terrific. Over 100 inspectors at- tended the classes in Bos- ton, 81 attended in Worcester, and 60 in Weymouth. So far, the responses on the Comment Sheets have been ex- tremely favorable. Special thanks to our instructors, including Plumbing Board Chairman Bill Callahan, NEAPGMI President Dennis Driscoll, former Plumbing Board Chairman Lou Stifano and Brad Wong of NStar. Also at- tending the sessions were Education Chairman George Murphy, Execu- tive Director Joe Peluso, Past Executive Secretary Lou Visco, Board mem- bers Joe Harold, Eddie Cruz and Bahig Kaldas, and State Investigators Taylor Roth, Jr. and Sal Sansone. We apologize to those in- spectors who were "bumped" from these classes because of space limitations. Additional courses are being offered (see schedule in this news- letter). Upon successful comple- tion of the required 12 hours, each inspector will receive a Certificate of Completion as well as a wallet card for verifica- tion. We want to thank Local 12 (Boston), Joe Harold and Sagamore Plumbing & Heating (Weymouth'), and Local 4 (Worcester) for hosting these classes and donating their facilities. THANK YOU! Our thanks go out to Bob Torbin, the Man- ager of Business Devel- opment of Foster -Miller, Inc. of Waltham, who pro- vided the CSST Booklets which were used in Ses- sion 1 of the continuing education classes. This 52 - page handout was pro- vided to all attendees 'as part of the curriculum. Foster -Miller is a consult- ant to the CSST manufac- turers and has been very helpful in working with our Plumbing Board on this issue. JOE PELUSO APPOINTED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Joe Peluso was ap- pointed Executive Di- rector of the Board of Ex- aminers on September' 23`d, and was officially voted in at the October 2nd formal meeting of the Plumbing Board. Joe has a PLUMBING & GAS INSPECTORS NEWSLETTER December 2002/January 2003 lengthy and impressive resume, including being the plumbing and gas in- spector and water and sewer supervisor for Mal- den for 11 years and an instructor at the Peterson School. Joe succeeds Louis Visco, who had held that position for nearly 20 years. Lou continues to work for the Board as a consultant on a part-time basis. UPCOMING CONTINUING ED. CLASSES f you weren't able to attend any of the first five classes for Session 1 of Continuing Education, there's still time! Addi- tional classes are being held in Springfield on January 11 "', Auburn on January 22nd and Worces- ter in February. Be sure to attend one of these, as Ses- sion 2 will begin following these classes. Also, when attending any of the classes, please remember to bring your code book! GEORGE MURPHY RECOGNIZED At the November 6'1' Plumbing Board meeting, Chairman Bill Callahan and the Board gave special recognition to outgoing member George Murphy in honor of his service to the Board and his many contributions. As Chairman of the Education Committee, George was the driving force behind the new continuing educa- tion program, volunteering countless hours to making the program a reality. He continues to be involved as a special consultant to the continuing education committee. Look for a fea- ture on George in the next issue of this newsletter. NEWEST APPOINTEE TO THE PLUMBING �oseph Koch of Millis was recently appointed to the Massachusetts Plumbing Board, follow- ing his swearing in cere- mony at the State House. He will occupy the Master Gasfitter seat vacated by George Murphy. Mr. Koch also serves as the assistant inspector for the Town of Millis. COMMON QUESTIONS isted below are some of the, most frequently asked questions regarding the Continuing Education classes: Q: If you are an inspector in more than one town, do you have to fill out more than one registration form? A: No. However, if you would like a separate form for each of the towns in which you inspect, we will gladly provide you with as -2- many as you need. We have one inspector who covers 13 towns'! Q: What happens if I was not able to attend any of the Session 1 classes which where held in Octo- ber? A: Not to worry! Session 1 will be repeated at least three more times prior to the May Is' deadline (see enclosed registration form). Q: Are you aware that the State of Massachusetts continues west past Worcester? A: Yes! And for that rea- son, we will be holding classes for Sessions l and 2 in Springfield. Q: Are you also aware that it continues on the'other side of the Cape Cod Ca- nal? A: Yes! And for that rea- son we are looking at loca- tions on the Cape for a Session 2 class. Q: Is it possible to have this newsletter and con- tinuing education informa- tion sent to my home in- stead of the town or city hall... where it sometimes gets lost? A: Absolutely! Just call or fax Gordon MacEwan (phone: 781-834-8900, fax: 781-834-1770) and let him know where you would like your mail, sent. All resident addresses will remain confidential. Q: Can I get a receipt for my registration fees? A: Yes ... the yellow copy you keep for your files will serve as a receipt, since it is stamped with the PLUMBING & GAS INSPECTORS NEWSLETTER December 20023 2003 IAPMO-N.E. stamp. Steven Lynch (D -Boston), from recent surgery. It was However, if an additional entertainment by local great seeing Ken at the receipt is needed, just ask. comedian Steve Sweeney, recent Continuing Educa- Q: My town will not re- and prizes, including a trip tion class in Boston. imburse me for the course for two to Europe. Special fees. Can I claim the regis- recognition was given to It was also good seeing tration fees as a deduction the members of the Plumb- State Investigator Frank on my income taxes? ing Board, who all re- Shea at the Greater Boston A: Yes... just like any ceived a warm ovation Industry Night dinner last other business-related ex- when introduced during month. Frank continues to pense. the dinner ceremonies. recuperate from serious Congratulations to Execu- back problems. SINCERE tive Director Hugh Kelle- her, Greater Boston Presi- A FEW BAD We extend our sincere dent Paul Harrington and their association on a great APPLES IN condolences to evening! THE "BIG George Murphy and his APPLE" family on the death of his THEY'RE #1 son-in-law, James "Jay" ongratulations to Brad he August 2002 issue Tof Galgay, who passed away on September 191h, follow- Wong, and NStar, on Plumbing & Me - chanical magazine fea- ing a long illness. Jay had being ranked the 41 gas tured an article on inspec- been a Master Plumber for utility in the East for resi- for bribery in New York over 29 years, and was the dential customer satisfac- City. Fifteen of the city's and gas inspec- tion in the recent J.D.plumbing 24 plumbing inspectors for for the Town of Lex- Power & Associates rat- were charged in June with ington for the past eight ings. In addition, NStar extorting hundreds of years. Jay was 52. was ranked #3 in the na- tion. Anyone who knows thousand of dollars to ap- prove inspections in the We also regret to inform Brad can understand why city. These charges came you that Bill Alfonse, the they received this honor. as a result of a two-year inspector for Freetown, investigation. If convicted, passed away last month. INSPECTOR each defendant could face IN THE NEWS up to 20 years in prison GREATERDuke LaConte was and a $250,000 fine. BOSTON PHCC recently appointed the Plumbing and Gas In- In a related story, the Sep - INDUSTRY spector for Lexington. tember 2002 issue of JLC reported that the FBI in - NIGHT Duke also serves as the dicted 13 plumbing in - 450 industry peo- inspector for Lynnfield. spectors in Philadelphia Over ple—including in- GET WELL for taking bribes from con - tractors to avoid inspec- spectors,ple contractors, wholesalers and manufac- WISHES tions, obtain preference in turers attended the bi- e send our best "Get scheduling inspections, or annual Greater Boston WWellWishes" to Fork without permits. PHCC Industry Night Ken Huntley, Inspector for Some of the bribes taken were as small Dinner on October 4`h. The the Town of Arlington, in Who does the inspections ctions evening included a dinner, who is still recovering now? Licensed master keynote speech by Sen. -3- PLUMBING & GAS INSPECTORS NEWSLETTER December 2002/January 2003 plumbers working in the city will be allowed to self -certify their own jobs under some conditions. The plumber must obtain permission from an in- spection supervisor and must photograph the job and attest that he has used approved materials and complied with the code. It is indeed unfortunate that a few dishonest in- spectors take away from the overwhelming majority of inspectors who are hon- est, hard-working and dedicated individuals. WESTERN MASS. INSPECTORS everal inspectors have asked about forming an Inspectors Association in Western Mass. If you are interested in this, please contact Gordon MacEwan at (781) 834- 8900 or Brad Wong at (508) 305-6969. TOILET TESTING The September issue of Consumer Reports featured the results of an extensive test of all the leading 1.6gpf toilets by all the major manufactur- ers, including (in alpha- betical order): American Standard, Briggs, Crane, Eljer, Gerber, Kohler, Mansfield, Toto, and U/R. All-in-all, C/R tested 28 toilets, with list prices ranging from a low of $100 to a high of $600. Does a higher price mean a better rated toilet? Not necessarily! For a copy of the test results, please con- tact IAPMO — New Eng- land at (781) 834-8900. RETIREMENT NEWS est wishes go out to Ed Memmolo, the inspector for Malden, who will be retiring at the end of this year after 23 years as an inspector. Ed has been a stalwart in our in- dustry and we wish him all the best! While on the subject of retirements, as mentioned in the last issue, Eileen Reilly recently retired after 26 years of service in the office of the Board of Ex- aminers. She received a unique retirement gift from her friends on the Board: a new heating sys- tem for her South Boston home. It seems that she had always wanted base- board heat. Knowing this, Chairman Bill Callahan, George Murphy, Sal San- sone and Lou Stifano do- nated their labor and Joe Harold of Sagamore Plumbing and Mickey Lorden of KeySpan do- nated the baseboard and boiler to grant her wish. Rumor has it the boiler did not fit through any of the doors or windows to her home and serious jack - hammering was needed. However, everything -4- worked out and she is now enjoying the comforts of her new heating system. WELCOME NEW NEAPGMI MEMBERS The NEAPGMI wel- comes their 21 newest members: Ernest Ames, Lowell; William Ciar- mataro, Nantucket; Wil- liam Butcher, Jr., South Hadley; Michael Craig, Weymouth; Michael Cro- teau, Chicopee; Joe Green, Bedford; Raymond Grenier, Sherborn; Robert Hauptman, Dover; Wil- liam Higgins, Cohasset; Herb Hohengasser, Greenfield, Montague, Wendell; Hugh Kelleher, Greater Boston PHCC; Fred Marion, South Had- ley; James Murray, Nor- folk; Robert Nation, Sud- bury; Vasilios Panagio- topoulos, Lowell; Butch Ramos, Nantucket; Peter Sakelakos, Danvers; Wally Swidrak, Orleans; Richard Wunschel, Sutton; Frank Yetman, Hingham; Gary Young, Hanover/Pembroke. MARK YOUR CALENDARS! It's not too early to mark your calendars for the 2003 Annual Meeting of the NEAPGMI. It will be held on Wednesday, Janu- ary 22nd at Lantana's in Randolph. Watch your mail and future issues of this newsletter for more information. PLUMBING & GAS INSPECTORS NEWSLETTER December 2002/January 2003 -5- tors. All of the Board PLUMBING Following the annual members and staff donated meeting and luncheon, their time to attend this BOARD MEETS Session 1 of the required seminar. WITH CSST continuing education pro- gram is tentatively sched- At the formal Board Meet- MFRS. uled for 1:00 p.m. — 5:00 ing held the next day, six n September 18a', the OMembers p.m. If you haven't had a adjudicatory hearings in- of the chance to take this class volving plumbing licen- Plumbing Board and sev- yet, this is the perfect op- sees were held. Offenses eral inspectors met with portunity, and the next to included charges from six major manufacturers of last time it will be offered failure to pull permits, to CSST in an effort to bring before Session 2 begins. deceit, malpractice and them up to date on how As always, pre -registration gross misconduct. The CSST relates to the is required. A registration results of those hearings plumbing code. There form is included in this will be published in the next have been several subse- newsletter. Those inspec- issue of this newsletter. tors who were bumped quent meetings to resolve from other classes will NEAPGMI numerous issues. Several have first priority. eventy members and topics were addressed and S guests attended the many issues were re - For those who are inter- November 5`h meeting and solved. As soon as the Board ested in joining the seminar of the NEAPGMI, approves these, we will NEAPGMI, yearly dues which was held at Peri- mail you a list of proce- are $15 for an Active winkles in Auburn. Repre- dures, certification Membership and $20 for sentatives from all the ma- requirements, and sp- an Associate. An applica- jor gas utilities in Massa- proved manufacturers. tion is printed in the back chusetts and Rhode Island of the Directory. You may spoke on their companies, also sign up at the Annual the geographic area each Meeting in January. covers, and their policies. Special thanks go to Jack PLUMBING Rose and Brad Wong, who BOARD coordinated this very in- Q & A MEETS IN formative program. everal excellent ques- SPRINGFIELDStions DO YOU were asked dur- Tlie November meeting KNOW? ung the first Continuing Education sessions: of the Board of Exam- iners was held in Spring- ow many plumbing Hand Q: Does a hand-held field on November 61". gasfitting Ii- shower have to have a Each year, the Board tries censes are currently held pressure -balance valve? to hold one meeting in in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? A: Yes! Q: What is the maximum Springfield and one on a) 10,907; b) 14,255; temperature of that Cape Cod. The night be- c) 22,518; d) 24,737 shower? fore their meeting, the members of the Board and (See correct answer on A: 112 degrees staff participated in a code back page.) Q: At 120 degrees, how many minutes does water seminar and dinner, which have to come into contact was attended by 49 inspec- -5- PLUMBING & GAS INSPECTORS NEWSLETTER with your skin to cause a I" degree burn? A: Eight minutes EXAM RESULTS Here are the results of the September 7"' Plumbing and Gasfitting Exams: Journeyman Plumber: 59 Passed, 84 Failed Master Plumber: 26 Passed, 26 Failed Journeyman Gasfitter: 2 Passed, 3 Failed Master Gasfitter: 2 Passed, 0 Failed LP Gas Installer: 9 Passed, 7 Failed DID YOU KNOW? In the State of Vermont, homeowners can pull their own plumbing per- mits (if they are not con- nected to town sewer) and can do the work them- selves, BUT they cannot hire a licensed plumber to do that work for them. INDUSTRY WEB SITES or news about continu- ing education, semi- nars and association con- tacts, check the IAPMO website at www.iapmo.org and click on the new section, "Mas- sachusetts Continuing Education Program," lo- cated on the left-hand menu. Two of the ap- proved associations for providing continuing edu- cation credits also have web sites: the Bay Colony Master Plumbers (www.BCMA.com) and the Northeastern Massa- chusetts Plumbing & Gas. Inspectors Association (www.nmpgia.org). Speaking of web sites, we are working with the Board of Examiners to get a link on their web site. SEMINARS HELD FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDITS ►sted below are all the recent programs which have counted for continuing education cred- its and the number of in- spectors (in parentheses) attending each: September 10: Central Mass. Inspectors Associa- tion dinner and seminar (40) September 11: NMPGIA dinner and seminar (24) September 18: SSPGIA dinner and seminar (44) September 19: Franklin County Master Plumbers Association dinner and seminar (12) October 2: Cape Cod PHCC dinner and CSST certification (24) October 8: Central Mass. Inspectors Association dinner and seminar (42) October 8: Charles River PHCC dinner and gas code seminar (7) 10 December 2002/January 2003 October 9: NMPGIA lun- cheon meeting and code discussion (31) October 16: SSPGIA din- ner meeting and seminar (44) October 18: Franklin County MPA dinner meet- ing and CSST Seminar (14) October 23: Bay Colony MPA dinner and Architec- tural Access/Handicap Access Board seminar (16) November 5: NEAPGMI luncheon meeting and gas seminar (64) November 5: North Shore PHCC dinner and code seminar (49) This brings the grand total to 938 individual certifi- cates, not including those attending the required Ses- sion 1! GAS APPLIANCES REQUIRE PRODUCT APPROVALS At the October 2 nd meeting of the Board of Examiners, the Board decided to require all manufacturers of gas ap- pliances, including gas ranges, to have the re- quired product approvals before those appliances can be installed in the Commonwealth. The Board also approved a 90 - day moratorium, begin- ning on October 2"d, which will give the manufactur- ers time to go through the PLUMBING & GAS INSPECTORS NEWSLETTER December 2002/January 2003 approval process. After the end of the 90 days, any products that have not re- ceived the appropriate product approval will be subject to removal. How can you, as an in- spector, determine if a par- ticular range has received the approval? The manu- facturer should have the product approval number on file. This is a five or six digit number, beginning with the prefix "G1." As a back-up, the Plumbing Board also has this infor- mation. During this mora- torium, manufacturers have "tentative approvals" on their products. APPROVED ASSOCIATIONS, CONTACTS our Inspectors Asso- ciations and five Trade Associations are approved to offer continuing educa- tion programs for credit. Details on these organiza- tions are as follows: INSPECTOR ASSOCIATIONS NEAPGMI: Dennis Dris- coll (Middleborough: 508- 946-2426). Meeting dates vary. Central Mass.: John Dolen (Cherry Valley: 508-892- 3423). Meets second Tuesday of every month. South Shore: Paul Ma- loney (Wareham: 508-291- 3192, ext. 3192). Meets third Tuesday of every month. Northeastern: Jack Cavag- naro (Woburn: 781-932- 4447). Meets second Wednesday of every month, alternating be- tween lunch and dinner meetings. CONTRACTOR ASSOCIATIONS Bay Colony Master Plumbers: Dan Laque or Mary Tasselari (508-830- 6086). Schedule varies, but meetings are usually on a Wednesday at the end of the month. Cape Cod PHCC: Peter DeFreitas (508-790-7591). Meets first Wednesday of every month. Charles River PHCC: Frank Monroe (781-326- 6083). Meets second Tuesday of every month. Franklin County Master Plumbers: Bill Tremblay (413-774-5878). Meets third Thursday of every month. North Shore PHCC: Dick Steadman (781-631-8900). Meets second Monday of every month. MASS. BACKFLOW FEATURED IN NATIONAL MAGAZINE The August 2002 issue of Drainage, Waste and Backflow Prevention magazine focused on the backflow requirements of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Previously, the July issue referenced a -7- number of different states that had adopted backflow prevention laws or regula- tions dating back ap- proximately 80 years. The August feature focused on Massachusetts and our regulations. For a copy of this article, please call (781) 834-8900. INDUSTRY RECOGNITON NIGHT HELD ore than 300 people attended the first Industry Recognition Awards Dinner, which was held on Friday, No- vember 22"d at Lantana's in Randolph. Numerous industry personnel were honored for their contribu- tions to the plumbing and gas -fitting industry. Hon- ored were George Murphy, Eileen Reilly, Bob McKinnon, Brad Wong, James Galgay, Ralph Maher, Congressman Stephen Lynch, District Attorney Bill Keating, Senator Michael Morris- sey, and Sheriff Michael Bellotti. STATE PLUMBING BOARD MEETING DATES ollowing is the meet- ing schedule for the upcoming Massachusetts Board of Examiners of Plumbers and Gasfitters. Meetings start at 9:00 a.m. PLUMBING & GAS INSPECTORS NEWSLETTER • Formal Board Meeting will be held December 4°i — 26 Court St., Boston. • Sub -committee meeting will be held on Wednes- day, December 18th (due to Christmas on the 25th) — Winthrop Town Hall. • Formal Board Meeting will be held Wednesday, January 8th — 26 Court Street, Boston. For more information, contact the Board of Examiners at (617) 727-9951. THE PRICE IS RIGHT t the November meet- ing of the Plumbing Board, a manufacturer came in for a product vari- ance on a solid copper "Essex -type" bath tub. The seamless tub is tin -lined, has mahogany trim, weighs 350 pounds and holds about 70 gallons of water. The list price on the tub? $27,000! UPCOMING SEMINARS FOR C.E. CREDITS Below is a partial list of upcoming seminars and programs which will qualify for continuing education credits: Cape Cod PHCC — December 4: Mitchell's, Hyannis NMPGIA — December 11: Radisson (Rte 38), Woburn SSPGIA — December 18: Fireside Restaurant, Middleborough Central Mass. Inspectors — December 10: Periwinkles, Auburn Charles River PHCC — December 10: Hoosic C.C., Canton ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY i t • t 1 ou may recall that in the last issue of this newsletter, we printed the names of several plumbers who had had their licenses either suspended or re- voked as a result of disci- plinary hearings. Well, one eagle-eyed inspector who had just read the newslet- ter caught one of those individuals trying to pull a permit and he refused to issue it to the ex -licensee! At the October meeting of the Board six additional adjudicatory hearings were held, resulting in two li- censes being suspended and four licenses being revoked. When a license is revoked, the Board has the authority to require the licensee to serve a three-year appren- ticeship and complete 300 hours of schooling before applying to the Board for permission to retake the Journeyman's exam. The names and license numbers of the individuals -8- December 2002/January 2003 involved in the most recent hearings will be published in the next issue of this newsletter, pending resolu- tion of the appeals process. HAVING TROUBLE READING THIS? Apair of reading glasses was left at the NEAPGMI meeting at Periwinkles on November 5`h. If these belong to you, please call Gordon at (781) 834-8900 and they will be mailed back to you. FARTHEST TRAVEL AWARD We have to recognize Bill Ciarmataro, Tom Paterson and Butch Ramos, all inspectors from Nantucket, who traveled to Boston for the October 3" continuing ed. class. It required two days, a round trip ferry ride and over- night in a hotel for the four-hour course. WILLIAM WOOD RESIGNS Williani Wood, the director of the Divi- sion of Professional Licen- sure, will step down from that position as of Decem- ber 31 ". Appointed by Governor William Weld in 1991, lie has held this po- sition for the past 12 years. PLUMBING & GAS INSPECTORS NEWSLETTER December 2002/January 2003 As director, he oversees 36 Taylor Roth, Jr., Sal PRODUCT boards, including the Sansone and Frank Board of Examiners of Shea: State Investigators ALERT Plumbers and Gasfitters. George Murphy: Special everal inspectors have S We wish him the best of consultant and Chairman received promotional luck in the future. of the Education Sub- literature on a new product committee called "Curaflow, the en - PLUMBING Michael Kass: Attorney gineered flow lining sys- for the Board tem, that is making pipe BOARD replacement virtually ob- MEMBERS ROHR WITH solete." It is manufactured Many of you have LAUGHTER by Curaflo Technologies in Vancouver, British Co - asked who the members of the Board of J91umbing & Mechani- lumbia, Canada. How does Examiners of Plumbers At cal magazine colum- it work? The literature and Gasftters are. Listed nist Ellen Rohr wrote a doesn't say. The Plumbing below are all the Board column in the October Board cautions that this Members and the "seat" 2002 issue entitled "The item has not received a which each represents: Plumbers' Wives Club", Product Approval from the William Callahan: Where she listed 36 an- Board. Chairman (also the Plumb- swers to "You know ing and Gas Inspector for you're a plumber's wife TRADE the Town of Billerica) if..." Among these were: ..he always knows where RESPONDS TO Rudolph Banks: Master Plumber position and the bathrooms are in any REGULATORY Chairman of the Plumbing building because he no- THREAT Sub -committee ticed the placement of the vent stacks on the way in. n Thursday, Novem- Ober Frederick Barker: De- • • •you were offered a cross 7`h the Plumbing partment of Health posi- section of a 3/8" copper Board learned of a public tion Esq.: Gail Barmakian, Es pipe as an engagement hearing g bein g held the fol - ring. g' lowing Tuesday (the first Consumer Representation ..you've been offered a day after the long Veter- Edward Cruz: Journey - spoonful of Bio -Clean ans' Day weekend ) m re - man Plumber position with the encouraging gard to the adoption of the Joseph Harold, III: Pub- words, "Go ahead Honey, "Building Code for One- lic Safety position i» eat it. Its safe really. and Two -Family Dwell - Y Dwell - Bahig Kaldas: Plumbing has never been to a in s "based on the Inter - g Engineer ...he family function without national Residential Code Paul Kennedy:Journey- Paul being asked to 1) look at 2000 with 2002 Supple - a man Gasfitter position and the furnace; 2) look down ments BOCA . ( ) Chairman of the Gas Sub- the drain; or 3) smell the committee odor coming from the At first glance, this might Joseph Koch: Master shower. not have appeared to be a Gasfitter position concern to the plumbing Joseph Peluso: Executive For the complete list, visit indust However, upon industry. P Director the P&Mweb site, further scrutiny, the Board Louis Visco: Executive �'�'•Pmmag cam. discovered disturbing lan- g Secretary, Retired guage in Part I — Adminis- trative and Chapter 1 — Administration. Under 0 PLUMBING & GAS INSPECTORS NEWSLETTER Section R101.5 Special- ized Codes, it stated, "Where differences occur between provisions of this code and the specialized codes, the provisions of this code shall apply." These "specialized codes" included the Mass. State Plumbing Code, among others. In addition, the new code contained lan- guage that jeopardized the positions of plumbing and gas inspectors. Since this document was a "regulation" and not "leg- islation," it could simply be adopted without the need for a vote on Beacon Hill. Fearing that the plumbing code would be in jeopardy in one- and two-family dwellings, the call went out to the indus- try. More than 60 inspec- tors, contractors and Plumbing Board members packed the hearing, speak- ing in opposition. Because of this overwhelming re- sponse, those attending were assured the plumbing code would not be super - December 4: December 18: January 8: January 11: January 22: January 22: January 29: February -TBD: December 2002/January 2003 seded. We will continue to I members affected by the keep you updated as we proposal. At the meeting, monitor this regulation. officials from KeySpan explained the details of KEYSPAN this proposal. METER Because of concerns regis- INSTALLATION tered by the industry, the UPDATE company has stopped the lock -out program in Mas - hose of you who at- sachusetts for now. In ad - t endedd the continuing dition, they will not be education classes know rolling out the program in one topic that generated New Hampshire because much discussion was the of issues with unlicensed proposal by KeySpan re- plumbers in that state. garding gas meter installa- Questions have been tion. Under this proposal, raised on this subject, in - after single meter installa- cluding several regarding tions, and after testing of liability issues and the dis- new customer piping and tribution of lock -out keys. inspection by the local gas inspector, plumbers will As a result of this meeting, connect their line to the the Plumbing Board is tak- meter bar and turn on the ing the proposal under ad - riser valve. visement. Check the next issue of this newsletter for This was the topic of the an update! NMPGIA meeting held on November 13'h. The meet- ing was attended by more than 75 people, including here are currently T24,737 members of the Plumbing licenses held Board, inspectors, contrac- in the Commonwealth. tors and KeySpan union INDUSTRY CALENDAR December 2002 — February 2003 Plumbing Board Monthly Meeting: Boston Plumbing Board Subcommittee Meeting: Winthrop Plumbing Board Monthly Meeting: Boston Continuing Education Class — Session 1: Local 104; Springfield NEAPGMI Annual Meeting: Lantana, Randolph Continuing Education Class — Session 1: Lantana, Randolph Plumbing Board Subcommittee Meeting: Winthrop Continuing Education Class — Session 1: Worcester State College M Summary of Association Meetings for Continuing Education credits - 2002 Date Association / Program # Participating May, 2: Symmons Industries Tour and Seminar 43 Inspectors May 7: NEAPGMI Spring Meeting & Backflow Seminar 102 Inspectors May 8: NMPGIA Dinner Meeting and Code Update 32 Inspectors May 13: North Shore PHCC Dinner Meeting 3 Inspectors May 14: Central Mass. Dinner and Code Discussion 36 Inspectors May 15: SSPGIA Dinner Meeting and Well Care Seminar 45 Inspectors May 16: Franklin County Dinner Meeting 6 Inspectors May 21: Charles River Dinner Meeting & Boiler Seminar 11 Inspectors June 11: NEAPGMI Code Seminar 88 Inspectors June 11: Central Mass. Dinner and Code Seminar 77 Inspectors June 12: NMPGIA Meeting and Seminar 39 Inspectors June 19: SSPGIA Meeting and Seminar 41 Inspectors July 8: North Shore PHCC Dinner Meeting 4 Inspectors Sept. 10: Central Mass. Inspectors Dinner Meeting 40 Inspectors Sept. 11: NMPGIA Dinner Meeting and Seminar 24 Inspectors Sept. 18: SSPGIA Dinner Meeting and Seminar 44 Inspectors Sept. 19: Franklin County MPA Dinner Meeting & Seminar 12 Inspectors October 2: Cape Cod PHCC Dinner Meeting & CSST Training 24 Inspectors October 8: Central Mass. Inspectors Dinner Meeting 43 Inspectors October 8: Charles River PHCC Meeting & Code Seminar 7 Inspectors October 9: NMPGIA Luncheon Meeting and Seminar 31 Inspectors October 16: SSPGIA Dinner Meeting and Seminar 44 Inspectors October 18: Franklin County MPA Dinner Meeting & Seminar 14 Inspectors October 23: Bay Colony MPA Dinner and A/A/Board Seminar 16 Inspectors November 5: NEAPGMI Meeting and Gas Seminar 64 Inspectors November 5: North Shore PHCC Code Seminar — Holyoke 49 Inspectors November 12: Central Mass. Inspectors Dinner Meeting 40 Inspectors November 12: Charles River PHCC Meeting & CSST Seminar 8 Inspectors November 13: NMPGIA Meeting with Keyspan 47 Inspectors Total: 1034 Inspectors Continuing Education - Session 1 Attendance October l: 70 Inspectors October 3: 28 Inspectors October 8: 37 Inspectors October 10: 46 Inspectors October 26: 60 Inspectors Total: 241 Inspectors TRAVEL DIRECTIONS FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION CLASSES LOCAL 104: 168 Chicopee Street, Springfield Phone: (413) 594-5152 From the Mass. Pike (1-90): Take the West Springfield Exit to Route 91 -South Cross over the river and exit onto Route 391 (Chicopee Exit) Take Exit 3 off Route 391 Bear left off exit Continue pass Channel 22 (on left) There is a Pride Station between two streets. Take Chandler Street to the left of the station Local 104 is on the left. LANTANA: 43 Scanlon Drive, Randolph Phone: (781) 961-4660 From Route 128: Take Exit 5A and bear right off Exit Follow to overhead traffic light (Holiday Inn and Texaco Station on right) Turn right at the lights and follow % mile to the end. Lantana is on the right. Parking is available on both sides. WORCESTER STATE COLLEGE: 486 Chandler Street Phone: (508) 929-8000 From the Mass. Pike (1-90): Take Exit 10 (Auburn) to Route 290 East Take Exit 17 (Rte. 9) Turn left onto Rte. 9 West, which will turn into Highland Street at the bottom of the hill. Proceed up the hill onto Highland Street. (see directions below from Highland Street) From Route 495: Take Exit 25 to Rte. 290 West Take Exit 18 (Rte. 9 West) Turn right off exit ramp and stay in center lane, following directions for Rte. 9 West Turn right onto Rte. 9 West, also known as Highland Street. (see directions below from Highland Street) From Highland St. While on Highland Street., stay in the right-hand lane. Stay on Highland Street. for 1.5 miles (you'll pass Elm Park and Doherty High School on the left). At the rotary, bear left onto June Street (pizza parlor on comer) At the second light, turn right onto May Street. The main entrance to the College will be three blocks up on your left. Page 1 of 1 Nicetta, Robert From: Santilli, Ray Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 2:54 PM To: Griffin, Heidi; Hmurciak, Bill; Dolan, Chief William; Starr, Sandy; Panino, Julie; Lagrasse, Brian; McKay, Alison; Nicetta, Robert; McGuire, Mike; Woods, J. Justin; Melnikas, Lt. Andrew, Sullivan, Jack Cc: Rees, Mark; Rosemary Smedile (rosemarysmedile@aol.com) Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Thank you all for the timely updates provided on the status of 101 Cricket Lane. Please be advised that based on the recent letter authored by the Hendley's, both Town Manager Mark Rees and BOS Chairman Rosemary Smedile have deemed it best that I serve as the intermediary for all communications and interactions between the Hendley's and Town personnel. Mrs. Smedile has conveyed this message to the Hendley's. Thus if any of you, in your official capacity, have a need to communicate with or respond to the Hendley's, please contact me immediately. If you have any questions and/or concerns, I will be available to meet with you to discuss them. Sau:t= Assistant Town Manager & Human. Resources Director 5/21/03 Page 1 of 3 Tuesday, July 23, 2002 Preft,0109 AWM $Wdl>p f /rtfarles In fire $hover; Bathtub, And $M* The auto-resettable anti -scald devices Each year, nearly 31,000 children ages 14 and under are treated in emergency rooms for burns from scalds. All national and regional code -making bodies have amended their plumbing code language to require anti scald technology and a maximum water temperature of 1201 in all newly constructed residential units. MemrySafee Anti -Scald products install in minutes onto individual fixtures to reduce the risk of tap water scalding injuries in the kitchen and bathroom. The heart of each MemrySafeo system is a patented valve which reac(s.<to: emperature;ot press When the unit senses dangerous scalding water, it immediately reduces the flow to a: trickle. When the scalding temperature subsides, the unit automatically resumes normal flow. Significantly reduce the risk of tap water scalding injuries Groups at Highest Risk of Scalding Injuries: *Children (highest incidence rate) Adults over age 60 Physically or mentally challenged Reduces water flow to below 0.25 gpm before temperature exceeds 120° Applicable existing plumbing codes and proposed U.S. standards specify 12OF as the safe and reasonable maximum temperature shutoff level (Exclusive Feature). Auto-settable: Exclusive Feature Easily installed - requires no specialized tools. Cost Effective! Resets when water temperature reaches safe level (avg. 981) DANGEROUS manual "reset isnot possible.; . • Page 2 of 3 Tuesday, July 23, 2002 ASTM F444-$8 - US. Standard Consumer. Safety Specification, for Scald -Preventing 'Devices and System"san Bathing Areas.: ASSE 1062 - Temperature Actuated Flow Reducers for Individual Fixture Fittings. Australian Performance Standards - AS 3500.4 - Control bathroom outlet water temperature to < 120°F.' Exclusively meets a.Pplicalile U.S. and international plumbing codes and standards, s including: m Approvals include: CSA- Canadian Standards Association WAWA- Western Australia Water Authority Allegheny County, PA Health Dept - Plumbing Division Reliable: 100% Product Testing Demonstrated Performance to 50,000 Actuations Made m.theU.S,A, Check out the full Specifications Sheet TechResults Inc. S- evu 70 -40137th Street, St Flushing, N.Y. 11367-1949 USA 1 It�/' n PHONE: (917) 817-3389 i jA 0 1' I FAX: (718) 263-1259 info�u;�antiscald com TechResults Inc is an authorized distributor of Memry Corp. MemrySafee products All Warranty and Product Liability is assumed solely by Memry Corp. httP://www.antiscald.com/products.htm Page 1 of 3 Tuesday, July 23, 2002 0 PreventJcter From _5C3/et1ng "71arfes In the $iZOwft, &MM14 And The auto-resettable anti -scald devices Hot tap eater accounts for 24 percent of scald burns requiring hospitalization anion PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Lifetime Limited Warranty Made in the U.S.A. ShowerGuard* Model 10500 (Internal) Model 10531 (External) Easily inserted into an existing shower unit. Just remove the shower head, place the ShowerGuard® into the shower arm and replace the shower head. • Fits shower arms with inside diameter of 0.65" - 0.68". • Flow Rate: 4 gpm at 60 psi. • Operating Pressures: 10 - 80 psi. • Dimensions: Length =1.5" Diameter = 0.65" FlowGuard® Model 11300 (O.D. - Outside Threading) Model 11320 (I.D. -inside Threading) • Easily fits bathroom, kitchen, or utility sink - installed just like a 1CA&ZG U1 standard aerator. • Flow Rate: 2.5 gpm (max.) at 80 psi. • Operating Pressures: 10 - 80 psi. • Dimensions: o Length: Model 11300 (0.925") o Model 11320 (1.12511) • Connections: o Model 11300 (15/16 - 27 UNS) (Outside Threading) o Model 11320 (55/64 - 27 UNS) (Inside Threading) BathGuard® • Model 11400 (Diverter) includes: BathGuard® valve, one tub spout, manual shutoff valve and adaptor fitting. Tuesday, July 23, 200: • Model 11401(Non-Diverter) includes:BathGuard® valve, one tub spout and adaptor fitting. • For more complete protection, BathGuard® should be installed with ShowerGuard® (Model 10500) insert. • Flow Rate: 12.5 gpm at 20 psi. • Operating Pressures: 5 - 80 psi. 4 TechResults Inc. 70 -40137th Street, Flushing, N.Y. 11367-1949 USA PHONE: (917) 817-3389 FAX: (718) 263-1259 TechResults Inc Is an authorized di . strib antiscald com http.//v ,`,�, antiscald.com/specs.htm utor of Memry Corp, MemrySafe®products Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 y -71 - Monday May 19, 2003 Delivered by hand TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER MAY 1 9 2003 NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING GEs''ARTNIENT OPEN LETTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND SELECTPERSONS Re: Our Seeking Occupancy for 101 Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision Our Open Letter supplements the first formal protest we made in writing to your Town Manager, in a communication dated Friday November 22, 2002, of how your officials connected with the building process engaged in maneuvers to make our ability to obtain final sign -offs for our Occupancy Permit for our above home -to -be as miserable as possible, so that, presumably, we are encouraged to. give up trying to ever become residents of North Andover and/or that these deliberate delays lead us into financial constraints to make us foreclose on our property. In our account to your Town Manager of what .occurred to us regarding the final sign -offs from your Plumbing/Gas and Fire Inspectors, we condensed the run-around we received from them. The actual events were a disgraceful and lengthy subjugation of us to meeting supposed conditions that chopped and changed ad infinitum so that a final -sign -off process that took A FEW MINUTES in IDENTICAL circumstances at other properties in this subdivision were made into weeks and months in out case. The intent of these officials had nothing to do with any semblance of performing their duties in a professional manner - it was designed to cause us maximum aggravation. Rubina's vilification in the public record (and our staunch belief that these officials would have thought twice about doing this to a white person) by your Conservation Administrator Ms Julie Parrino and Director of Public Works Mr Robert Beshara is an outrage perpetrated by these officials of a magnitude that is egregious and reckless in the extreme. We are both the legal owners of this property, Ms Parrino and Mr Beshara had met both of us prior to sending out their recriminatory letters, yet it was Rubina who was singled out by them despite these alleged misdeeds being of a general nature allegedly affecting our property as a whole. These letters would have been despicable enough addressed to us both, but specifically targeting Rubina speaks volumes for the mindset of their senders. In these, Rubina was blamed for a series of alleged wrong -doings (including a DEP citation for criminal activity by Ms Parrino). Further, the supposed infractions within these letters were stated as fact with neither support nor substantiation at the time these officials made their written determinations, other than what appears to be remarkable psychic abilities on their part. With this ability, Mr Beshara also deemed that elements on our property be demolished or made threats of demolition against them with no basis whatsoever for his orders of destruction, not even providing an as -built plan. [Mr Beshara's threat to demolish a beautiful stone -wall directly adjacent to our property was particularly spiteful in its intent, since the Page 1 of 18 `story' behind its construction is common knowledge in the subdivision.] Mr Beshara also conveniently omitted referring in his letter to the one-hour he spent haranguing Rubina at what he describes only as "his site visit" on May 23, and preferred instead to refer to what sounded like a jaunty tete-a-tete "with the homeowner and landscape contractor" on May 24, when in fact that day both of us, not just Rubina, were harassed by him. Both these reports in the public record also contain other outright falsehoods. In the case of Mr Beshara's letter, the net result was to let the developer, our former builder and Mr Beshara himself off the hook for the real reason the town easement on our property was compromised by having the convenience of "Mrs Rubin. Hendley" (already notorious as the subdivision villain courtesy of Ms Parrino) as the scapegoat. Then a few days after receipt of Mr Beshara's letter, the developer's daughter, Ms Gerry -Lynn Darcy, also sends Rubina a letter expressing righteous indignation at all the awful horrors Rubina has committed, as catalogued for her by Mr Beshara, and goes on to threaten legal action against Rubina for these (these, too, determined by Ms Darcy with what appear to be the same remarkable psychic abilities as Mr Beshara's and Ms Parrino's). Both Mr Beshara and Ms Darcy must think we were born yesterday to not realize how obviously orchestrated this was. No doubt this game so wantonly played by them both with defiling someone else's reputation also led to bond money being released by your town. Because these letters take the form of `official' pronouncements in the written public record, they will be taken seriously and assumed by many (as has already been the case within this subdivision) to be true without any question of their veracity or validity. Such libelous and defamatory statements soon became talking points in the subdivision, we learnt, and repeated with glee by the likes of your Health Administrator Mr Brian La Grasse in conversations with us. We have suffered enough from Mr LaGrasse's rudeness and sarcasm - we are not alone in remarking on this official's atrocious behavior - without his adding this slanderous fuel to'his repertoire. [For instance, Willis asked a perfectly abstract question in an August 2002 phone conversation with Mr LaGrasse for advice on what we were supposed to do and was met with the answer. "Mr Sawyer is reputable. The reason you are in so much trouble is that you don't know what you're doing." By inference, we presume we are not "reputable".] These letters have understandably caused considerable distress to Rubina, that she feels to this day, as well as to Willis and our entire immediate family. Thus, there is an entire subdivision in your town with multiple examples of violations (some serious) committed by the developer and various contractors that can all be corroborated with hard facts, not mere suppositions, but which have remained virtually unreported, un -addressed and uncorrected by your officials, and yet the only damning record of malfeasance within it by any individual is that against brown -skinned "Mrs Rubina Hendley" on a foundation that is non-existent. Meanwhile, you, as a town, have not even bothered to even ask the most fundamental question of your officials involved in sending out these letters, even after we alerted you, namely, what specifically is the support for the criminal citation, demolition orders and reports of wrong -doing being stated as fact? We reached a point last November, not just of extreme mental and physical exhaustion, but also of realizing that the civility and composure we had maintained up to that point in our .. Page 2 of 18 interaction with your officials - despite encountering all manner of unrelenting humiliations, degradations and other ignominies at their hands - was an absolute waste of our time. It is an effort for us to do so in this letter, since our only impression of the environment in your town is one in which this kind of misconduct is all in a day's work — tolerated and allowed to flourish. Our rights have not just been trampled over, but removed entirely and we find ourselves at the mercy of a town and its officials who are exercising not jurisdiction but abuse of power. Overall, the administration of this subdivision by your town has been an utter shambles and there are homeowners with properties with significant violations of local and state regulations through no fault of their own -just as in our case. These are not due to isolated examples of an honest mistake or two by your officials, but wholesale abrogation of their responsibilities. [An attorney for one of the other homeowners reported ofhis own volition to Rubina that he was not just angry with the builder/developer for the violations his clients' house was left with, but with your town for having "allowed" them.] But the main difference is that they are living in their homes, whilst we are not and, only in the case of Willis and Rubina Hendley, does the town of North Andover get on its high horse and lectures and blames us for these violations occurring, when they were committed by the developer, our former builder and other contractors under the full oversight of your respective officials. It is noteworthy, that we were the ones to bring many to your attention in the first place! Thus, it has been the case that, when these violations committed by others and left uncorrected by them causes us difficulties, we could be assured that your town would suddenly become conscious of every t and every i needing to be punctuated by Willis and Rubina Hendley and, for good measure, throw in a list of regulations at us that exist only in thin air. Indeed, as we have learnt to our cost, impartiality has been virtually an unknown entity in your town in many of its dealings with us. Our interactions with public officials have revealed widespread steadfast support of,, and an obsequious manner of regarding the developer and contractors in this subdivision — a concern echoed to us by other residents in North Andover. Even more troubling, since your town has a habit of dismissing anything we say or report, is the fact that the public record supports instances of your town allowing the developer and other contractors to circumvent regulations. We believe one of the reasons for the antagonism towards us is that we have disrupted and exposed this status quo in North Andover and we have even been foolhardy to think it reasonable to ask your town for accountability, let alone principled conduct as the norm. Of the numerous serious abuses of the public trust by your town, we consider the situation within the Board of Health under your Health Director, Ms Sandra Starr, to be so unpalatable for the public welfare that we had no hesitation in filing a complaint with DEP. We do not consider there is anything remotely reasonable about having to deal with an official, who has concealed deception by the septic installer responsible for the septic installation at our property (see part two of our DEP complaint), has the most rude and dismissive mannerisms we have ever experienced with any public official and whose oversight of the septic installations at our property and at others within this subdivision is replete with dereliction of duty and demonstrable lack of competence. Together with the hateful and harmful way both Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse have treated us, we will never be Page 3 of 1.8 assured of any fair treatment from either of these officials. At a minimum, we believed strongly that Ms Starr's serious professional misconduct needed to be reported at state level whether or not any censure or other action occurs. It goes without saying that in light of our experiences with your town it would have been an exercise in futility for us to expect any move by your town to address Ms Start's conduct and administrative neglect, especially since we have been made aware of numerous complaints about Ms Starr that you as a town appear not to have adequately addressed, with very real grievances and difficulties being experienced by homeowners and contractors alike, aside from the ones who happen to be in her favor. We have, thus, been prevented from occupying our home -to -be, not because we have done anything wrong, but as a result of a series of what can only be described as the most vindictive, often retaliatory, acts and decisions hurled at us and time and time again by certain of these officials. This is the form they have taken - "tailored" specifically for us — and a blatant assault on our liberty to be able to live in and enjoy our home free of unnecessary constraints and restrictions: • utterly bogus conditions for us to comply with (always conveniently verbal); • other conditions that are both vague and contradictory (also conveniently verbal); • decisions due to malicious interpretation of regulations (also conveniently verbal); • decisions that have impeded our ability to seek competitive bids free of restrictive trade practices; • decisions based on incorrect or lack of understanding of regulations. In a personal meeting we had with Ms Rosemary Smedilie on November 22, 2002, we informed her of the stress we had needlessly been placed under and our deteriorating mental and physical well-being and we were led to believe that the Town Manager would call us. We were so looking forward to finally having an end to the surreal nightmare created for us. Instead of the direct personal contact with us we were expecting and an offer to the effect of `let's get you into the house for you to enjoy Christmas', we received a letter from his office dated January 8, 2003, that is quite frankly an insult to anyone's intelligence, in that it consists of obfuscations, sidestepping, lame excuses and absurd and far-fetched reasoning in an attempt to justify blatant misconduct and outright negligence; essentially condoning it. It also displays an inappropriately woeful ignorance of even your own town's regulations, let alone state and federal regulations, rights and protections. Neither are we amused by its tone of condescension in the `solutions' proposed and the implication that we do not follow regulations. We have had enough aspersions cast on our good name without this further denigration of our character. Additionally, since the public record for this subdivision supports the fact that you, as a town, are in the proverbial glass house, it is more than disingenuous for your town to attempt to adopt such a sanctimonious stance. This sort of response has not only exposed your town's callous indifference to our situation, but could hardly, to put it mildly, be considered salutary - it has helped us understand how the officials concerned are able to hold themselves above the law and behave with impunity whenever and in whatever manner they choose to with us. The actions of your officials, sanctioned at Town Manager level, have led to months of unjustifiable delay and expense to us. The mental anguish and suffering we have been caused has had deleterious effects on our health, with both of us dealing with acute depression and countless sleepless nights in addition to total upheaval in our personal, family, financial and working lives. Our son and Page 4 of 18 respective parents (Willis' mother died after a period of illness during the merry-go-round we were put on by your Fire Inspector) have not been spared distress either. Tried as we did, to shield our beloved ones from any knowledge of the ill -will we were being subjected to, it was impossible. It is painful for us to see how our own families are so badly affected by the harm and hurt your officials have and are causing us. These officials would never have contemplated, let alone dared, to engage in the antics they have so freely and maliciously done with us on any one of you. Below in numbered form is a continuation of our account, summarizing what were actually much more tortured and convoluted happenings, of how we have been treated: 1. Fire Inspector. In the Town Manager's January 8 letter to us: "You state that you have been trying to receive a final sign -off on the interior sprinkler system from the fire inspector since mid-August. Per regulations, the fire inspector is waiting for a set of prints and calculations for the sprinkler system before granting final approval. Approximately a year ago, he conducted a flow test on the system but still required the appropriate paperwork before final approval. The burden to produce the required paperwork is on the installer through the property owners. In order to assist in expediting this issue, Lieutenant Melnikas, in lieu of the required paperwork is willing to conduct a "walk-through" in order to visually examine the sprinkler system. If all appears proper to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, Lieutenant Melnikas will provide the final sign -off on the interior sprinkler system. Please contact his, office at 978-688-9530 to schedule a mutually convenient time." So, your Fire Inspector has finally agreed to perform a visual walk-through inspection at our property, a decision he was able to make INSTANTANEOUSLY at the seven other properties in this subdivision that were in the SAME circumstances as ours, but one that took him FIVE MONTHS to make in the case ofourpropertyand that, too, only after we complained. You see, in our November 22 letter we suspended describing our ordeal at the hands of your Fire Inspector with the statement- "....we tatement"....we suggested to your fire inspector to use the blueprints for Lot 7 (#132) because this property has an almost identical interior layout to ours." We will tell you why your Fire Inspector could not do this, since he appears to have neglected to mention it himself. In Rubina's October 23, 2002 phone call to your Fire Inspector, she asked for a copy of the blueprints for Lot 7 and was informed by him that he had "only received the sprinkler plans for Lots 6 and 8". More correctly, would have been to state that he did not bother ensuring the others were submitted. Your Town Manager's explanation "per regulations, the fire inspector is waiting for a set of prints and calculations before granting final approval" is a weak attempt to validate your Fire Inspector's failings in the following regards.- Page egards: Page 5 of 18 1. Your Fire Inspector did not bother to get the sprinkler plans and calculations .for a total of 8 out of the 10 new -construction properties in this subdivison and then to check BEFORE work on installation even commenced if the coverage depicted in these plans was adequate, as was his required duty for safety reasons per your regulations, 2. Despite the requirement, per your regulations, that plans and calculations be submitted BEFORE the granting of a Building Permit, every one of the 8 out of 10 properties without plans had the Building Permits issued anyway; 3. Then, the entire sprinkler installation was allowed to proceed to completion at all 8 properties without any. plans and calculations and at this point, in our case only, it suddenly became important to have a these on file after all the work was completed - a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, if ever there was one. . For the record, your Fire Inspector actually came to our property on August 9, 2002, when Rubina was present, for the purpose of our receiving our final sign -off from him for the sprinklers and smoke detectors. He left without giving us any sign -off and, as he was leaving, Rubina asked why. Your Fire Inspector informed Rubina that the plumber needed to do a flow test first and when Rubina informed him that this had already been done the previous year, your Fire Inspector then said he would need to first check at his office to see what Rubina stated was true. He informed Rubina that he needed a couple of days to double-check and if the flow test had indeed been performed, then Rubina could. bring our Building Permit to his office and he would sign it. Rubina spoke to him a couple of days later and; -from that point on for a period ofthree weeks, not only did your Fire Inspector refuse to issue the sign -off he had promised, but also went back and forth with her for what he wanted from us for this final sign -off. After this dilly-dallying, the `version' your Fire Inspector eventually settled on for what he was expecting us to comply with was this:. that our plumber re -do a flow test for him because it had been done "all that time ago" and for us to provide sprinkler blueprints for the installation. Yet, despite the fact that it was a total impossibility for us to provide these plans and that your Fire Inspector was fully aware ofthis (and our November 22 letter explains we could not comply with your Fire Inspector's demand because we informed him that we had been informed that the company issuing these had since gone out of business), your Fire Inspector remained fixated on us. providing these plans and never once suggested, even though WAUs suggested it on two occasions in phone calls to your Fire Inspector, that he do a walk-through with a visual inspection which is what he could and should have done the time ofhis original August 9 walk-through at ourproperty. Instead, for a total of over three months, Rubina ended up speaking regularly with your Fire Inspector regarding finalizing our sign -off. Each time Rubina mentioned how unhappy our plumber was at re -doing the test now that carpets had been installed, the fact he had already satisfactorily performed this test before and also the impossibility of obtaining blueprints for the sprinklers. Each time your Fire Inspector remained intransigent. In the last two - conversations Rubina had with him, she pleaded "please, Lieutenant Melnikas, let us have a sign -off; it has been over three months", he responded each time with "you know what you have to do, get your plumber to make an appointment with me to do that flow test again" followed by the same "then we'll see", said in a flippant and almost mocking tone. Page 6 of 1.8 Rubina refused to have any more contact with your Fire Inspector after our plumber. personally stopped by (first on a Monday, when he learnt the Inspector does not work, and then again the next day) to talk to your Fire Inspector about his unhappiness with doing yet another flow test with the nice carpets we had had installed. Our plumber then reported back to us that your Fire Inspector had told him that there was no reason for a flow test after all, stating "I didn't realize you were the same plumber", but that we the homeowners still needed to provide plans. Clearly, your Fire Inspector's "then well see" to Rubina actually translated as `then we'll see you get the run-around for longer'. Thus, for months your Fire Inspector had repeatedly stressed to Rubina that our plumber needed to perform .the flow test again because it had been done by our plumber "all that time ago", now changes his story to not needing one after all because our plumber is the "same" person, but remains steadfast in our need to provide him with blueprints, all the while Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 do not and yet the homeowners of these properties have occupancy. 2. Gas Inspector. The explanation offered in your Town Manager's letter for the run-around we suffered at your Gas Inspector's hands can be similarly dissected by us, as with the above scenario, and shows, once again, how supposed rules and regulations were applied only to us and were also distorted in their application. Yet again, the response from the Town Manager fails to directly address or explain the actual issues we raised in our November 22 letter. 3. Electrical Inspector. Moments after Willis picked up a Permit in his name to complete the finish electrical work at our property, Rubina received a phone from our former builder's electrician. This contractor proceeded, in vehement fashion, to berate (a stupified) Rubina for what he stated were our criticisms of him and his work at our property. Rubina was totally shaken by his claims. It transpires that your Electrical Inspector had made a phone call to this contractor soon after Willis had obtained our permit and (most unprofessionally) felt it appropriate to indulge in `gossip' about our decision for completing the finish electrical work ourselves at our Property - out complete right to do so under the regulations. 4. Ms Julie Parrino, Conservation Administrator. For reasons we could not fathom during Spring 2002 (but which explained themselves in due course), our landscape contractor and we were being subject to constant meddling and unpleasant needling by the developer's site contractor/septic installer Mr William Sawyer during a landscaping project at our property that had started on April 5. [This was actually a continuation of the same pattern of behavior that had begun a few weeks before we became legal owners in May 2001.] Suffice to say, we were not impressed with the way this contractor could run to your officials with all kinds of tales about us and rely on their full cooperation in joining in with, not just the harassing of us, but also with hurling at us all kinds of other accusations at us that emanated from him as fact. In frustration at the daily nonsense our landscaper and we were being subjected to by your officials, on both our behalves, Rubina paid a visit to Mr Tim Willer and Conservation. Regarding the visit to the Page 7 of 18. I latter department, Rubina spoke to both Ms Pa=o and her assistant Alison about our landscaping project, mentioning we were perplexed about Mr Sawyer's reason for complaining to the town about us. Ms Partin told Rubina she would be on our property the f following day, to which demand Rubina said "you will give me the courtesy of doing so when I am there" and asked Ms Parrino for an appointment time. However, Ms Partino would not give one and told Rubina to speak with Mary, the Conservation secretary, for the actual time of her proposed visit. Mary, in turn, told Rubina that she could not set up an appointment without speaking to Ms Parrino 0). So, Rubina left and phoned Mary again several times that day to find out the time Ms Parrino had arranged or alternatively to speak to Ms Parrino directly. Each time Mary informed Rubina that Ms Parrino was too busy to talk to her, that, Ms Parrino knew about letting Rubina know and that Ms Partin wished to have Rubina's cell phone number. The next morning Rubina went to our property just before 8am and once again phoned Mary several times for the time of Ms Parrino's arrival, since Rubina could not spend all day outside wondering and waiting. Each time Mary assured Rubina that Ms Partin knew she needed to give Rubina an appointment time and that Ms Parrino would be contacting her. After over fours hours of waiting, Rubina phoned Mary to tell her that Ms Parrino still had not been in touch, that Rubina was thirsty and hungry from waiting in the heat and would return within 20 minutes after picking up refreshments just down the road. In the short time while Rubina was away, Ms Parrino arrived, having never contacted Rubina and proceeded to wander round our property with Mr Sawyer.and to impose a stop order to our landscaping work in part of our detention basin. The subsequent leveling of Ms Parrino's DEP criminal citation against Rubina was made just hours after Rubina had a lengthy cell phone conversation with Ms Parrino soon after Ms Parrino's intrusion onto our property, in which Rubina. informed Ms Partin that she "expected more professionalism" from her. Rubina informed Ms Parrino that she did not "think it was right to ignore me every time I tried to make an appointment". Ms Pamno then told (an incredulous) Rubina that "you have altered grades within the detention basin" and that she wanted us to "have a survey done", further claiming that our detention basin had already been surveyed as part of the overall certification procedures the developer needed to comply with (when in fact this was a false statement - see our DEP complaint). Rubina then asked Ms Parrino to explain specifically what she meant by "we had altered grades", to which Ms Parrino only reiterated her demand that she wanted us to do a survey. Getting nowhere with Ms Parrino's stubborn refusal to consider our side of the story, Rubina then said "since you have helped your onto our property, did you see any grades being altered in the detention basin ?" To this, Ms Parrino admitted she had not. Rubina then informed Ms Parrino that if she wished to listen to "gossip and insinuations about us from Mr Sawyer"; that Ms Parrino was "free to do so on the street" and "not while roaming around our property, without our permission, in our absence, in the company of this site contractor who had no authorization to be there either". During this conversation, Ms Parrino - obviously unmoved by Rubina's consternation at having trespassed on our property and slandered our good name by hurling spurious accusations at us as fact - demanded again that we arrange for a survey to ostensibly disprove (or presumably prove) - the allegation made by the site contractor that grades within our detention basin had been altered. When Rubina protested this requirement, Ms Parrino continued in the same specious vein and informed Rubina that, because Rubina was "not an engineer", Ms Parrinio did not consider her qualified. Rubina pointed out that neither Ms Parrino nor Mr Sawyer Page 8 of 18 X, i were surveyors and yet she was not asking Mr Sawyer to prove his allegation to be true. Ms Parrino again demanded we conduct a survey of the detention basin to prove to her that grades had not been altered and stated if we did not do this we would notget a final sign-off&om her. Ms Partin also went on to verbally impose a series of conditions on the use of the rear of our property within the 100' wetland buffer zone (one of only two in this entire subdivision that are well outside this zone, including the majority of the detention basin), that were so ludicrous and restrictive that we practically were expected to ask her permission before even touching a blade of grass. Our follow-up letter to DEP includes some other details, the not insignificant ones being that Ms Partin had a lengthy discussion with both of us prior to mailing out her criminal citation of Rubina alone, and of your own Conservation Commission's wanton disregard for its responsibilities in ensuring the developer complied with DEP-mandated requirements. The expense and delay we were thus subjected to by Ms Parrino's demands before she would give us a sign -off were a complete violation, from beginning to end, of all the rights and protections we are afforded under the law. Little did we know at that time that Ms Parrino was just a warm-up for even uglier travails in your officials'. hands. 5. Building Inspector. In July 2002, your Building Inspector, Mr Michael McGuire, informed Rubina that he would not be prepared to conduct the final walk-through inspection leading to an occupancy permit for our above home -to -be. Mr McGuire indicated that he was offended by a complaint Rubina made against him regarding the manner in which he dealt with concerns we had about building code violations by our former builder that were not being addressed while the latter was the legal owner of this property. Since Mr McGuire gave no other option to Rubina after having made this statement, Rubina naturally asked him what we were supposed to do. At this point, Mr McGuire informed Rubina that she could ask. the Electrical Inspector to perform this, stating that he also had building inspection experience, or to ask the Building Commissioner, Mr Robert Nicetta. In a subsequent conversation with the secretary for the Building Department, Jeanine, for help with how we were to set up these appointments, Rubina leamt that Mr Nicetta was rarely available and the Electrical Inspector only worked part-time. When Rubina pointed out that this was somewhat of an inconvenience, Jeanine also made the comment that it was not a "particularly nice thing to do to complain about Mike" and that in light of this he would not be coming to our property. 6. Ms Heidi Griffin, Community Development & Services Director: In August 2002, in a face-to-face meeting, Rubina informed your Director of Community Services Ms Heidi Griffin that Willis had taken a total of six mornings off work to attempt to speak to either Mr LaGrasse or Ms Starr during the public counter hours of gam to 10am Page 9 of 18 i i i" and, on each occasion, neither of these officials were available. On each of those days, f Rubina explained that Willis had arrived a few minutes after nine and waited until a few minutes before ten without ever being able to speak to either of them because they had either not arrived or, on two occasions, were too busy to talk with him. Rubina then pointed ' out that when Willis eventually made phone contact with Ms Starr, he was forced by Ms Starr to make an appointment to see her during counter hours when the appointment system was clearly intended for outside counter hours. After Rubina finished describing Willis's experience, Ms Griffin said that both Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse were required to attend to counter hours and asked if Rubina was certain of this. Rubina assured her that Willis had lost six mornings off work by no-one from Board of Health being present during counter hours. Rubina also mentioned the times she too had been affected by the absences at counter hours at your BOH. A few days later, when Rubina asked to speak to Mr LaGrasse, Ms Griffin was on hand and, to Rubina's complete surprise, admonished her by stating that "you spent an hour with him yesterday". When Rubina attempted to explain her side of the story (too tedious, North Andover, to go into the details here), Ms Griffin retorted with "it's true, I saw it", which made Rubina decide she was not going to bother with trying to overcome such an argumentative stance. Ms Griffin's attitude stunned Rubina so much that she did not mention an unpleasant experience she had recently had with Ms Starr at the counter when Rubina asked to speak to her, at which time Ms Starr remained totally mute, refused to say anything, instead untaped a piece of paper from the counter, walked away with it, brought back what appeared to be a photocopy of this paper, pointed rudely to the statement on it that said "other times by appointment only", threw the photocopy at Rubina, turned her back and walked away. In late November 2002, Willis had a phone conversation with Ms Griffin who brought up the topic of a letter (dated November 12, 2002) she had received from Rubina on our behalf, in which Rubina also asked for a response from Ms Griffin to various concerns we raised - needless to say, we never received any reply. In this letter, Rubina had pointed out various problems we had encountered during our attempts to put our failed septic installation into compliance, including those as a result of a deeded septic grading easement for our use being permanently compromised. Rubina had sent the letter to Ms Griffin (who has a background in Town Planning) as a result of complete frustration at how many errors and problems we had discovered and were suffering the adverse effects of in our attempts to rectify the septic non-compliance issues at our property. Ms Griffin stated to Willis that Rubina's letter was "confusing" and that she did not "know why she sent this to my department". Willis made no comment to Ms Griffin's assessment of Rubina, but here is our a -b -c explanation for Ms Griffin having failed to notice the obvious: • Your officials should not have allowed the violations to occur in the first place; • having occurred, it is your officials' job, not ours', to detect them, but that is what we ended up doing; having detected them, we were then left to sort out the problems as a result and your officials failed to notify the parties responsible or to offer compassionate help to us. 7. Mr Robert Beshara, Director of Public Works: On May 23, 2002, the site contractor/septic installer Mr Sawyer accosted both Rubina and our landscaper about the supposed condition of the granite curbing in the street alongside Page 10 of 18. our property and accused our landscaper of removing some sort of material from behind the curbing, an accusation hotly denied by our landscaper. At some stage, Rubina also received a visit from Ms Darcy and her father and subdivision developer Mr Thomas Laudani. It is pertinent to point out that at the time we were unaware that your town had given a blanket issuance of a Certificate of Compliance to the developer without checking whether any of the conditions for the correct installation of the roadway had been met by the contractors working for the developer. Within a couple of hours of this - yet another of Mr Sawyer's accusatory bouts - Rubina returned to our property after a break and noticed someone in a pick-up had parked alongside our property and was staring at.it. A few minutes later, this person got out of the vehicle and stood on the street, still staring towards our property. Since this was more than disconcerting, Rubina asked who he was, stating that she was one of the homeowners (Rubina has got used to doing this as she has been mistaken for being a laborer or cleaning person before). He introduced himself as "Bob Beshara from DPW' and immediately said to Rubina "your driveway opening is in the wrong place". Rubina said "what do you mean it's in the wrong place". Mr Beshara pointed to a drain in the street and told Rubina that was where it needed to be instead of where it actually was. He then walked to his vehicle, brought back a piece of paper — an 8"x11" printout of a portion of the approved subdivision plan detailing our lot — pointed to a drain location depicted on it and then to the drain on the street and said "that's where your opening should start". Rubina asked him how he knew that the drain in the street was put in the location per the approved plan. Mr Beshara said "I measured it". He repeated again that our driveway opening was in the wrong location and pointed to where he claimed it should be. Rubina then informed him "if we put it there, we will hit the side of the house", assuming this was evident to Mr Beshara for vehicle entry into what is a side -entrance garage. Rubina than pointed to the house across the road and said "see how that driveway is offset from the side of the house, just like the way ours is". Rubina pointed to the plan showing the same relationship of our driveway to the house and told Mr Beshara that if he was claiming that the driveway opening needed to start at this street drain then "it's obvious that our house was put in the wrong location". Mr Beshara ignored Rubina's observation and said again that our driveway opening was in the wrong place and that we could not have it where it was. Rubina pointed out that it had been there ever since we took over the house from our builder and asked "shouldn't you be talking to the developer? - tell him to sort it out since it's at street level and nothing to do with us". [You see, Rubina had some idea about the regulation that states "It shall be the developer's responsibility to assure the proper placement of the driveways regardless of whether individual lots are ,sold' At this point Mr Beshara revealed the real reason for his sudden `interest' in the location of our driveway opening — by the way, that no-one in your town was interested in all the time our former builder was the owner - because he retorted with "well, Mr Sawyer said you told him to put it there". Rubina, taken aback at Mr Sawyer's appearance in the conversation, replied "if you must know I did nothing of the sort. This was something we got together with our builder about and this is the location we all decided on because it is the only place for it. Perhaps my builder told Mr Sawyer". To this Mr Beshara retorted with a very curt "I can't get into he -said she -said". So, your official Mr Beshara can report Mr Sawyer's Page 11 of 18 / J statement as being fact and if Rubina attempted to give our side of the story, it turns into "can't get into he -said she -said". Mr Beshara continued in this vein about our driveway opening being "in the. wrong place" and also added that the driveway asphalt could not impinge on .the town easement at street level either. Rubina pointed to the plan that showed otherwise, but Mr Beshara insisted no part of the easement could have asphalt on it. Rubina then pointed out that our driveway at street level would then be a very narrow strip barely .` one car wide and that, together with its peculiarly -shaped and very acutely -angled approach, ' would not be safe to use. She asked if Mr Beshara felt it reasonable that our house would then have the only driveway in the street looking "both silly and practically unusable". Mr Beshara stayed adamant, constantly reformatting his angle of attack each time Rubina came up with an intelligent and commonsense response. Mr Beshara finally browbeat Rubina into believing we could not leave our driveway entrance in the location where it was. Mr Beshara told her we would have to apply to Planning for permission to have the driveway opening and location where it currently was, but unless Planning approved the existing location, we would have to move it to where he said. When Rubina asked him how this approval process was done, he explained that we would have to place our application on the agenda for the next meeting and present our case and went on to make a big production of a chance it might be denied. Then the topic switched and Mr Beshara told Rubina that she needed to remove a boulder wall, a couple of trees and our sprinkler system from what he described as the town access easement. Having barraged Rubina for over half -an -hour about the driveway opening, he then proceeded to barrage her for another half -an -hour about these alleged impediments, also bringing up the claim that our landscaper had "badly damaged the street curbing". Regarding the latter, apart from some minor popping -out of cement filler between the curbing sections, neither of us could ever detect anything out of the ordinary in the condition of the curbing outside our property compared to the rest of the street. Of course, any attempt on Rubina's part to point this obvious -to -the -eye fact out to Mr Beshara was met with resistance on Mr Beshara's part, because his agenda for pestering Rubina was clearly pre -conceived. The entire experience with Mr Beshara left Rubina drained and shaken because so much of Mr Beshara's way of speaking was with thinly -veiled threats - this was the main reason Willis took a day off work the next day to be at our property just in case Mr Sawyer or Mr Beshara hounded her again. Lo and behold, Mr Beshara. turned up again the next day and fortunately for Rubina, relatively soon after he had begun where he had left off the previous day, Willis showed up, which resulted in Mr Beshara's switch to a more modulated approach with Willis present — all white and CY of him — but essentially got us feeling as if we were some sort of common criminals with having a driveway opening and trees and sprinkler systems all allegedly "in the wrong place". After spending over forty minutes with us on his mission for the good of the subdivision, Mr Beshara felt it appropriate to send a letter to Rubina ALONE, in which Rubina is referred to in the third person terms that are unequivocally harassing and humiliating towards her in their implications. Mr Beshara's letter purportsto show how dutiful he is to send this horrific `discovery' of all these problems Rubina had caused to the town easement to the `unsuspecting' daughter of the developer. The letter also helpfully contained numerous additional `discoveries' Mr Beshara had never mentioned to us and that were as Page 12 of 18 unsubstantiated as his other claims, such as that there was "construction of a driveway" occurring at our property that he claimed was compromising "the Town's ability to provide maintenance and repairs to the drainage system". For the record, it was clearly evident to him that there was no work occurring on construction of a driveway at our property then (or to date) — but no doubt this `observation' helped the developer to receive his bond money back. Presumably desperate to pull as much out of his conjuring hat (he forgot the rabbit) as possible to ensure that only Rubina got blamed for the easement being compromised, Mr Beshara also made sure everyone knew about "curbing" that the irresponsible "Mrs Rubina Hendley" allegedly placed in the town access easement. This "curbing", that is such an alleged impediment to vehicles, consist of 12" long by 5" high blocks of the type available in Home Depot and used for edging flower beds in millions of homes throughout the country. North Andover, is there no limit to the degradations your town officials feel they can put us through? There are so many twisted, exaggerated and sordid claims in Mr Beshara's communication that are based wholly on unsubstantiated claims and outright lies that we are left at a loss for words for the brazen manner in which he can get away with writing these things. The statement in the letter "the driveway opening was adjusted to suit the homeowner" implies that the driveway opening location that was in place was due to unreasonable or flamboyant excesses by us. Not only was this not the case, but it was clearly obvious in any site visit that it was also the only REASONABLE place for it and we had no other option since our builder had constructed our house in the wronglocation (confirmed by the as - built on file at the time) and also at the wrong elevation. Exactly the same type of deviation in location and elevation that occurs at other houses in this subdivision — for example, the property adjacent to ours has a driveway in a significantly different location and elevation to the approved plans so as to permanently compromise our deeded septic grading easement and also cut across our lot line — but of course this is no concern to either your town or Mr Beshara. It is noteworthy that in his letter, Mr Beshara refers to a "15' width in the easement to allow access to maintenance and construction vehicles". The original width of this part of the easement per the approved plans was 20' total and the SOLE reason Mr Beshara has reduced it to 15' total (10' instead of the approved 15' on our side of the property line and 5' on the adjacent homeowners side of the property line) is because he was fiilly aware that our builder had positioned our house much closer into the easement side of our property than the approved plans depicted and that he actually knew this was reason for the easement being compromised. Another degradation in this letter was the reference to a May 29 meeting at our property between the developer's daughter Ms Darcy, Mr Beshara and Mr Sawyer for which we were not present not we knew nothing about and this letter exposes how these individuals thought they had a right to impose conditions on how we could use our property. Worst still, Mr Beshara wrote: "Requiring the driveway to be built according to plan would require the homeowner to remove a substantial wall and stairway which would .serve no purpose". Page 13 of 18 This statement is an example of PURE UNADULTERATED MALICIOUSLY MADE. Mr Beshara has a PE qualification — heknew HARASSMENTeactly at the as effect of that horrific, .unsubstantiated, threat to destroy our property was all about. A few days after receiving this communication, Rubina phoned Mr Beshara and informed him that since he was "so concerned" about sprinkler systems impinging on town easements, did he realize there was a sprinkler system and heads within the town easement at the property next door. Mr Beshara replied, "Is there? Is there? I'll go and knock on their door and tell them to remove it." Rubina asked when he would do this and Mr Beshara f replied "this afternoon". A few days later, Rubinshoned again gun to enquire about Mr Beshara'svisit and this is what he came out with "on second thoughts, you can leave your sprinkler system in place". There are also recently -planted trees on the adjacent property that also appear to impinge on the access easement — but your town is not going to be interested in those because they do not form part of the need to use "Mrs Rubina Hendley" to deflect attention away from violations committed by others. 8. Ms Sandra Starr and Mr Brian La Grasse, Board of Health: The entire circumstances behind the se tic installation failure at our roe that occurred under the full ovetsi ht of our Health Director Ms Sandra Start reveal administrative failinPs on a scale that A staggering and incidents ofsertous professional rrusconduct by both contractors and o8ici ds alike On Thursday November 21, 2002, Mr LaGrasse, delivered a verbal cease and desist order at our property to stop work being continued by our contractors who were in the process of preparing to build a wall alongside an existing septic installation that had been originally installed to completion in November 2000, under the aegis ofMs Starr, but which, in fact, signi£candy failed to meet the minimum requirements of Title 5 of the state environmental code with regard to downhill slope setback requirements for the soil absorption system because of significant deviations in elevations and locations of permanent structures at the adjacent occupied property compared to the approved plan. [Deviations from approved plans at the adjacent property and their subsequent adverse effect on ours is relevant to consider since the public record clearly shows this entire subdivision as being an engineered site with complex interaction of the location and elevation of structures and other elements within and between each lot. Even though Ms Starr had information from the public record to. support the fact that site conditions deviated significantly from those in the approved septic design plan MONTHS before Mr Sawyer started work - thereby making this original plan for our property invalid for use by our former builder and Mr Sawyer and that any septic installation using this plan should never be allowed to proceed - nevertheless, full installation was allowed using this same plan, with permit issued to Mr Sawyer and periodic inspections performed by Ms Starr.] IT IS AN IDISPUTABLE FACT THAT TITLE 5 HAS IN-BUILT ADMINISTRATIVE SAFEGUARDS TO HAVE PREVENTED THE WRONG DESIGN FROM EVER HAVE BEEN USED FOR A SEPTIC INSTAT.T.ATION. Page 14 of 18 ra` Through our own investigation and efforts, we made the painful discovery of significant Tide 5 failure of the septic installation at our property, which also included identifying significant administrative errors throughout this subdivision made by your various oMcials and numerous examples ofsignifcant violations ofstate and local regulations that had been allowed by them for one reason or another (refer to our complaint lodged with DEP for examples of these). The wall construction work that was required around the existing septic installation at our property was not part of the original design and its purpose was to act as mitigation of sewage breakout and meeting downhill slope setback requirements for Title 5 minimum requirements. Compounding the headaches we have incurred as a result of mistakes made by your officials concerned, the wall was necessary because we were prevented from using a deeded septic grading easement for our property on the adjacent property because your officials also wrongly allowed a structure (a driveway) to be placed on it at the wrong elevation whose location could not be changed either. Thus, instead of being able to add soil to solve the Title 5 failures at our property, we had the considerable extra expense of needing a wall built. The cease-and-desist order was one of the most vindictive decisions in a whole slew to which we have been subjected by your officials connected with the building process all the while we have tried to seek occupancy for a home we have labored hard for. It TOTALLY UNNECESSARILY prevented our being able to move into our home for the 2002 holidays, particularly as we had suffered enormously* as a result of the serious administrative mistakes at the hands of Ms Starr and had also ended up personaffyidentifying and sorting out these in order to submit a revision to the original approved septic design plan used for the installation at our property. [* We went thorough weeks' long mental shock and agonies believing Ms Starr's decision that we had no other option but to remove the ENTIRE eadsting septic installation and replace it with anew one, because she had failed to ensure that the most fundamental and vital Title 5 requirement of deeded septic grading easement needing to be .depicted on the original septic design plan. It was entirely due to vigilance on our part and the decision we made to study Title 5 for ourselves that we were spared this removal and replacement at a huge cost to us.] We are as much the victims of the negligence of your Health Director and associated contractors with regard to our septic installation as are the equally innocent homeowners living in a property in this subdivision discharging sewage and household waste for the last three years to a septic system that is in technical violation of Title 5. What is likely to happen at the point these homeowners might try to sell their property? Discover how the town had allowed. contractors, perhaps long gone, to leave them with this impediment to selling their property. We were also present at the time of Mr LaGrasse's visit and the cease and desist order came as a total shock and surprise to us and we expressed 'as much to Mr LaGrasse. Mr La Grasse went on to inform us that we were performing work allegedly in violation of an administrative condition in which: Page 15 of 18 • a licensed septic installer take out a permit for our wall installation work and for a minor repair to the end of a plastic septic pipe damaged during tree planting preparation work by our landscaper; • then for this installer to stand around the whole time the wall work was being done; • then for this installer to agree to certify the entire septic installation (original and new). Mr La Grasse informed us that unless we complied with these conditions, all work on I` building the wall would have to cease. We asked Mr LaGrasse to cite specifically where the requirements we were expected to comply with were mentioned in the regulations for the circumstances we were under. At this point Mr LaGrasse did not answer our question, but instead informed us, with a very broad grin across his face, "that's Steve Ericsen's job and he should have known better than to let you go ahead with this". We pleaded with Mr LaGrasse to be allowed to complete the work because we had a miniscule window of opportunity left before winter conditions made work outside impossible for the kind of work we needed to do. Our plight clearly satisfied the spiteful behaviour that we have time and time again been subjected to with Mr LaGrasse. As he walked away from delivering his cease-and-desist order, he threw his head back laughing and as he got in his car and drove away he carried on laughing. This was also witnessed by both our contractors, whose disbelief at Mr LaGrasse's conduct mirrored ours. Mr LaGrasse's notification of a cease and desist order at this time of the year, within the context of the entire circumstances behind the septic installation issues at our property as well as the manner in which your officials had treated us to date, effectively ended all hope for us to be able to occupy our home -to -be for the late 2002 holidays and meant we would have the massive expense .of an empty, but otherwise habitable home, to support until the weather broke in the late spring/early summer of 2003.' The requirement we were given to fulfill by Ms Starr of our needing another septic installer taking over the responsibility for installation of the original septic installation at our property is also in complete contradiction to the statement she made to our septic designer, Mr Steven Ericsen, in September 2002, in which Ms Starr would act as administrative sign -off for the existing septic installation (in light of Mr Sawyer's refusal to do so for our original installation) and Mr Ericsen would act as the certified surveyor as the administrative sign -off for the wall construction. Not just content with shielding the original septic installer from deception involved in our septic installation, Ms Starr has backtracked on the procedure she outlined to Mr Ericsen. In the days after the cease-and-desist notification was given, we both spoke to numerous officials and also spent running around frantically trying to find a way to comply with yet another set of `verbal' conditions that defied commonsense as well as our understanding of the regulations (of course, no support along those lines was ever given us, despite the fact time and time again — including our written request to Ms Starr originally made in August 2002 that has been totally ignored to date we asked for these in writing). Page 16 of 18 The response from your Town Manager has not helped because its reference to administrative requirements he claims we should meet contradict the ones repeated time and again to us by Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse. Further, in his letter, your Town Manager states: "Your filing a complaint with the Department of Environmental Protection against the Health Department staff is within your discretion. However, it is uncertain whether the Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction in the matter. If you believe that the actions of the Health Department staff were unwarranted or not in compliance with regulations, you bring the matter before the Board of Health at their next scheduled meeting. 'r If you wish to do so, please contact Ms Sandra Starr at 978-688-9540 to be placed on the agenda." Needless to say, in light of our entire experience with your officials and with Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse in particular, we find this suggestion to be almost beyond belief In the case of our trying to put our existing septic installation into compliance, Ms Starr has turned what was a straightforward corrective process into a contorted and ugly proceeding with additional problems created for us, entirely due to her's and Mr LaGrasse's own administrative mishandling, negligence and outright hostility towards us and by Ms Starr's shielding of the septic installer's attempts to mislead. Despite your Town Manager's stance, there is absolutely no justification WHATSOVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, that the form your officials' behaviors and decisions have taken to date could be construed as necessary or reasonable for our circumstances. As for the traits outlined in the "Customer Service Follow Up Form", issued by your Community Development & Services Division, these are an excruciating reminder to us that these, the most basic of concepts in public service that should be automatic in their execution for all, have purposefully excluded us. We consider it is disgraceful indictment on your town that your officials have given the `welcome mat' of such nasty associations with our home -to -be and that because of the environment we have encountered that has been so discriminatory, retaliatory and lacking in impartiality towards us we are forced to resort to using our attorney to make sure no more of our -tights and liberties are violated. Yours sin rely, Willis A M Hendley Rubina Hendley Page 17 of 18 i cc Ms Kathy McKenna, Planning Building Department Ms Julie Parrino, Conservation Mr Hmurciak, DPW Mr Beshara, DPW Mr Tim Willet Ms Sandra Starr, BOH Mr Brian LaGrasse, BOH Ms Heidi Griffin, Community Services Development Lt Melnikas, Fire Inspector Page 18 of 18 Mark Rees Town Manager Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Sent via Certified Mail Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane NY Methuen, MA 01844-2669 a Friday November 22, 2002 Re: 101 Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision: Serious Concerns Dear Mr Rees, NOV 2 5 2002 BUILDING DEPT, Thank you for seeing us on October 31 regarding concerns we had relating to the non- ImpOnegt compliant septic system at our new -construction property in the above subdivision. As we mentioned, we took over completion of our home in May 2001 from our former builder with a Homeowners' License Exemption for its completion prior to receiving occupancy for ourselves and our son. The reason for our letter to you is that we have been victimized to such an extent by officials in your charge, whom we consider to be both out of control and seemingly unaccountable, that a strong protest from us is long overdue. First of all, we wish to inform you we have not, to date, responded to a barrage of written accusations placed into the public record about purported violation of regulations at our property. For reasons we cannot fathom, only Rubins has been singled out by your offrcials and had correspondence regarding these alleged infractions addressed solely to her, despite the fact that we are both owners of record for our property. Yet, before these letters were sent, the officials concerned had met both of us. The matters referred to in their letters are not individual actions, such as personally observing Rubina engaging in a supposed violation, but of a general nature concerning our property as a whole. Officials in your charge at the very least should, as a matter of course, be versed in correct form for officially - generated paperwork. It is both negligent and discriminatory on their part to do otherwise. In light of the fact that one of the accusations, Rubina's alleged violation of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c.131, s40, constitutes a criminal act, this failure is particularly egregious. We intend in due course to answer every one of these allegations with factual information (including that from the public record and experts we have retained) to support our claim that they are unfair and many times incorrect. Our documentation also exposes your officials' double standards in its dealings with us and also their numerous failures to enforce and implement various state and local regulations amongst the licensed builders and contractors working in this subdivision. In the case of the situation regarding the septic system installation and non-compliance issues at our property, we consider the entire manner in which the process has been administered by your Board of Health to be so egregious in its performance and the conduct of its officials to be so unconscionable that we have filed a formal complaint with the Department of Environmental Protection. In addition, we have also included examples of numerous other irregularities of Title 5 of the state environmental code allowed by your Board of Health in this subdivision. However, despite the unpleasantness of the above scenario and the several months' setback we incurred to our original aim of final inspections and occupancy in the month of April, we thought we were on track to begin the administrative process again in August. Unfortunately, this process was once again made more time-consuming for us because of the manner in which certain officials in your charge have chosen to handle giving us these sign - offs. We have effectively been prevented from occupying our home in a reasonable time because some of the demands made are the exact opposite of reasonable and it would take months or years for us to comply, if ever. Although we are not professional builders, we assumed that North Andover town departments would show the same understanding and help that we have always experienced with the City of Methuen, where we have resided for eighteen years. We have not sought not expected special treatment, but we took for granted, as a natural course of proceedings, fairness, impartiality, professionalism and above all competence on the part of your town officials connected with the building process. In turn, we realized we also had responsibilities to ensure work was completed to the satisfaction of applicable codes and if it was not, absent wanton disregard on our part, we expected your town would work with us in finding the best resolution. Instead, we are overwhelmed and exhausted with trying to comply with the kind of demands that have so far been sent our way. We have outlined two examples below of what we mean in terms of onerous and unreasonable. Example 1: Since mid-August we have been trying to receive a final sign -off from your fire inspector and have failed to date, not because of any wrong -doing on our part or faulty installation at our property, but because whoever was responsible for ensuring our former builder supplied interior sprinkler -system blueprints as a condition of receiving his Building Permit way back in December 1999 failed to do so. Not only have we have been given the burden of providing these blueprints before we can get a final sign -off from the fire inspector, but no attempt has been made to show any sensitivity to us for the enormous difficulties we have time and time again made known we are incurring in trying to get these blueprints. We have informed your fire inspector on numerous occasions that our former builder has not been able to track these down as the sprinkler -system company appears to have gone out of business. When we asked your Building Inspector, Mr McGuire, for suggestions for a solution, he most kindly interceded on our behalf and tried to see if one of the other builders in the subdivision could help out. Unfortunately, this avenue did not work out either. Since the same company originally supplied the sprinkler -system blueprints for the entire subdivision, we have suggested to your fire inspector to use the blueprints for Lot 7 (#132) because this property has an almost identical interior layout to ours. However, your fire inspector still insists we provide blueprints specifically for our property. It is now three months since we first requested a final sign -off from your fire inspector and there is no end in sight to our dilemma. Example 2: In this case, our plumber needed a final sign -off after he hooked -up our gas appliances in mid-August. Your gas inspector informed our plumber that we needed to provide UL certification for our gas range before our plumber could receive a sign -off for his work. Several days later, Rubina personally presented this certification to your gas inspector who at that point informed her we would not be receiving a final sign -off unless our range was also on the state's approval list. A few days later, your gas inspector informed our plumber we would also need UL certification for our gas wall oven and that it too would have to be on this `approval' list. Our plumber, licensed by the state as a Master Plumber, was completely bewildered by the request regarding presence on an approval list and informed us he could do no more for us regarding.sign-off on our Building Permit. We too were completely bewildered by not being able to use gas appliances we had purchased through Massachusetts retailers and that had been hooked up to the gas supply by our plumber until we complied with these conditions. We subsequently informed your gas inspector that there was no UL certification for our gas wall oven and that neither our range nor wall oven were on the state's approval list. We asked your gas inspector how we could not automatically use gas appliances we had purchased brand new and that had been installed by a licensed plumber on a valid permit. But your gas inspector was adamant about us complying with his demands. The trauma caused us by our trying to comply with these conditions was not due to instructions being lost in translation by the time it went from your inspector via our plumber to us. We made sure that the various conditions our plumber related to us were actually as stated by directly asking the gas inspector himself to confirm them. It took four weeks of us going round in circles and getting nowhere in trying, but failing, to comply with what your gas inspector demanded. When we realized we could not, we then tried to get the Massachusetts retailers who sold us these perfecdy-functioning appliances to take them back — but to no avail and we were left with appliances we could not use. Eventually, in complete exasperation because your gas inspector was insistent about his demands, we felt it was long overdue for our own investigation into how it could be that as homeowners who purchased gas appliances in Massachusetts we could never, supposedly, get approval from your gas inspector for using them. Firstly, we contacted the state gas/plumbing division and spoke to two officials, a state gas/plumbing inspector and the executive secretary of the gas and plumbing board, Mr Louis Visco. We gave the background to our quest for seeking a sign -off from our local gas inspector, that it was one month since our plumber's initial request and how conscientiously we had been trying to comply with our local inspector's demands. During these conversations, we learnt that the state actually recognized certification from numerous national testing laboratories and not just the one testing laboratory that had been demanded by your gas inspector, that all these laboratories were on a list published by the state and that our appliances could have certification from any one of these towards compliance. The reason this clarification was significant was because one of our gas appliances did not have the particular certification being demanded by your gas inspector. Mr Visco was genuinely concerned with the delay we had incurred thus far, informed us we could apply to the state for a hardship variance and that he would personally make sure he was present at the hearing in Boston. We were on the verge of mailing our variance request when we decided to make sure we had replacement gas appliances we could use as back-up. Imagine our surprise to find that not one of the six in -stock gas appliances we looked at in Massachusetts stores were on the state's approval list, including appliances by GE, Maytag and Whirlpool. Imagine our surprise at learning from the Customer Service departments of GE and Maytag that the companies would not entertain doing the administrative process for being added to Massachusetts' approval list and that this state was the only one in the entire country imposing this condition. Imagine our further surprise on discovering that none of the three homeowners we contacted in our subdivision had gas appliances that were on the approval list, neither at the time of their builders' sign -offs, nor yet to date. (The state has a service for checking if appliances on the approval list if manufacturer and model numbers are supplied.) At this point, we had had enough of trying to comply with such a ridiculous demand. Willis decided, by taking another (out of countless others) morning off work, to present all our findings to your gas inspector and for a coherent explanation for how the majority of consumers and homeowners purchasing gas appliances in Massachusetts could in theory never use them because most were not on the state's approval list, including ours. Before Willis could get through even a quarter of these, your gas inspector informed him we could have our sign -off. A nightmare that could have been avoided from day one! Sincerely, 7iM Was AM Hendley 4 Rubina Hendley Enc: Photo of Willis and Rubina at son Imran's recent high-school graduation. Town of North Andover Community Development & Services Division, Customer Services Follow -Up Form. cc Heidi Griffin, Director Community Development and Services Division Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner Michael McGuire, Building Department Kathy McKenna, Planning Department Julie Parrino, Conservation Department J William Hmurciak, Director Public Works Department Rosemary Smedile, Chairman, Board of Selectman I m r Std-�rTr .•* v t c r FM �' t Town of North Andover Community Development & Services Division Customer Service Follow Up Form Employee/Department Customer Was in Contact With: Instructions: Please ask the customer to rate the employee contact on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most positive rating. If the trait was not observed, or not applicable, write N/A. 1 • Greeted customer in a cheerful manner. 2. Learned and used the customer's name. 3. Demonstrated full attention and appropriate listening skills. 4. Was polite during the transaction. 5. Expressed concern over the matter. 6. If a mistake was made took personal responsibility to see was corrected 7. Remained calm and receptive 8• Offered to explore options for solving the customer's problem 9• Before closing checked to see that all customer concerns were addressed 10. Explained policies and rules to customer's satisfaction 11. Closed the contact on a positive note. Page 1 of 2 Diozzi, Jimmy From: John Ryan Oryan@townofnorthandover.com] To: Nicetta, Robert Cc: D'Agata, Donna Mae Subject: RE: 101 Cricket Lane I was called to do a final plumbing and gas inspection. i started the inspection with the plumber mr. john donavan, when i went to check the temperature at the shower vales he informed me that the valves he installed were not a pressure balancing valve as required by code and he could not get the water temperature down to 112 degrees as required by code. the home owner installed a temp. reducing device which still did not get the temperature down to 112 degrees, the plumber removed the existing valves and installed the proper ones and i then signed off on the plumbing. in regards to my inspection of the gas system i asked the plumber where the name plate was so i could check to see if it has a approved testing stamp on it. He informed that he could not find it so told him to have the home owner bring the literature in so i could see if anything was in there. In the mean time where i did not reconize the manufacture so i check with the state to see if it had a product approval number which it did not, also i was informed that the state was in the process of finding out that the manufacture have not been keeping there approvals current and they were going to have a meeting regarding this problem and we were to inforce the code until they decided on what to do which they did my given them some to update there approval and in the mean time the inspectors could approve the appliance as long as it had the proper testing data which i did and signed off on the gas. When the home owner talked to mr. Visco he told her about the product approval numbers which they did not mention in there letter. Also the homeowner called the state on more than one occasion, they cheked with the state on whatever i told them to make sure i was correct amd telling them the truth, which they were informed that everything i told was correct in that i was inforcing the mass plumbing and gas code. as i have in the past and will continue to do so in the future, i will not compromize the safty and health of the public even through it might cause minor inconvience for someone..See attach regarding the code we are talking about. -----Original Message ----- From: Griffin, Heidi Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:46 AM To: Nicetta, Robert; Parrino, Julie; Lagrasse, Brian Cc: McKenna, Kathleen; Diozzi, Jimmy; DeCola, Jimmy; Santilli, Ray Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Hello to All: Can you please draft a written response to Ms. Hendley's letter dated Friday November 22, 2002 (accordingly). Obviously each respective department should answer to her allegations concerning their department. I will then take your written responses that you will email me, and merge them into one document to formulate a response letter (excluding the fire department inspector allegation) on the Town Manager's behalf. I will require a response by 2:00 p.m. tomorrow. If you have appointments in the morning, please clear your calendars appropriately so that I can have a response by the 2:00 p.m. deadline. Your response does not need to be as lengthy as Mr. Hendleys' allegations, rather please just specifically answer her allegations/questions at hand. I realize the budgets were due today and apologize for the quick deadline. However, hopefully you can each understand the importance of responding to this letter as her allegations, when all added together, appear to be preparation for a lawsuit. Kathy, you are copied because although you do not have to respond, the letter is entitled "Walnut Ridge Subdivision, Serious Concerns". This is to keep you in the loop as the status of the subdivision. Ray, you are being copied as the Town Managers' ombudsmen on resident complaints so you are aware of the status of our expedient response to this letter. 11/26/02 248 CMR: BOARD OF STATE EXAMINERS OF PLUMBERS AND GAS FITTERS y 5.00: continued 5. 1.1 Revise the Section as Follows: Appliances, Accessories and Equipment to comply with Standard Requirements. All gas appliances, accessories and gas utilization equipment shall comply as follows. (a) All residential appliances shall be certified by the American Gas Association or other nationally recognized testing agency, constructed in accordance with applicable American National Standards (ANSI), and approved by the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters. (b) Commercial and Industrial equipment that is not certified by the American Gas Association or other nationally recognized testing agency acceptable to the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters shall not be installled unless approved by the local gas inspector in accordance with Part 8 of the Modification Section entitled Procedures for the Initial Operation of Industrial Gas Equipment (c) A List of Reference Standards acceptable to the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters is provided in Appendix A of ANSI 2223.1 - NFPA 54 1988. It may be referred to for the installation of specific equipment. (d) A list of National Testing Laboratories acceptable to the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters follows: American Gas Association Laboratories 8501 East Pleasant Valley Rd Cleveland, Ohio 44131 ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. Industrial Park Cortland, New York 13045 Factory Mutual Research Corporation 1151 Boston -Providence Turnpike Norwood, Massachusetts 02062 Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. 333 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062 United States Testing company, Inc. Tulsa Division 1341 No. 108th East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74116 Applied Research Laboratories 5371 North West 161 Street Miami, Florida 33014 Household gas cooking appliances only. National Sanitation Foundation Ann Arbor, Michigan Testing facility for plastic only. Warnock Hersey International, Inc. Wisconsin Division 8612 Fairway Place Middleton, Wisconsin 53562 Canadian Standards Association Rexdale. Ontario MOW 1 R3 12/1/93 24X CMR - 163 ternative markings designed "to be clear, recognizable -00 s The CSA mark without indicators continues to appear on products certified for the Canadian market. The new markings are alternatives to the CSA NRTL and NRTUC designations, used since the U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) accredited CSA as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) in 1992. Regulators may continue to see the NRTL and NRTUC markings in the marketplace. "Regulators can count on the nPw itiarking- to mean that the product has been tested and found to comply with all applicable stan- dards," says Doug Geralde, Manager, Audits & Investigations (A&I). "We are committed to protecting the integrity of all our certifica- tion markings." A survey conducted earlier this year revealed overwhelming support for the new markings. Respondents noted that the "C" and "US" provide a clear and easy -to -understand indica- tion of the involved countries, to the benefit of regulators, manufacturers and product users. The new markings can be used for electrical, mechanical and gas products. (Also see "New gas markings..." on page 2.) rn more about these markings by calling 1-800-463-6727 ww csa-international.orglenglish/product services/index_marh.httn and clicking on RefNo: 99-013—April 5, 1x999. Regulator's Update! wen with solutions"'fohr,electrical a las,the:continent and the world shrinl a�gtves you key information about our wo and other'relevant topics to'help`you i b sites, contact people and other sources Ii ular.:topic on, an expansion of the.prevtously ptiblisl th°the electr►caf and gas sectors., WeAnow of products with both a gas and an electric you work in – will' find all `the`cot tent us( ou think about this newsletter using the R gibasd@csaexp, .jc a ca Watch for the n this"edition.online'at WWN Csa=inter V,vi Responding to the; heeds of regulators, manu- Meet the 'facturers aind.consulners,..CSA International \ & I Team has introduced alternative markings for prod- rt x-1 uct ', destined for the,U.S., as well as those estined for both the U.S. and Canada. etWe sincejuly 1, products certified to 'stan6X cart beanthe new CSA -US a tnsttxrig of the familiar CSA � � C t rndicator, US". A second ih ilie` C and "US" indica- k ng, aiable forproducts certified to din ad l� S standards. (See box below.) -00 s The CSA mark without indicators continues to appear on products certified for the Canadian market. The new markings are alternatives to the CSA NRTL and NRTUC designations, used since the U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) accredited CSA as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) in 1992. Regulators may continue to see the NRTL and NRTUC markings in the marketplace. "Regulators can count on the nPw itiarking- to mean that the product has been tested and found to comply with all applicable stan- dards," says Doug Geralde, Manager, Audits & Investigations (A&I). "We are committed to protecting the integrity of all our certifica- tion markings." A survey conducted earlier this year revealed overwhelming support for the new markings. Respondents noted that the "C" and "US" provide a clear and easy -to -understand indica- tion of the involved countries, to the benefit of regulators, manufacturers and product users. The new markings can be used for electrical, mechanical and gas products. (Also see "New gas markings..." on page 2.) rn more about these markings by calling 1-800-463-6727 ww csa-international.orglenglish/product services/index_marh.httn and clicking on RefNo: 99-013—April 5, 1x999. Regulator's Update! wen with solutions"'fohr,electrical a las,the:continent and the world shrinl a�gtves you key information about our wo and other'relevant topics to'help`you i b sites, contact people and other sources Ii ular.:topic on, an expansion of the.prevtously ptiblisl th°the electr►caf and gas sectors., WeAnow of products with both a gas and an electric you work in – will' find all `the`cot tent us( ou think about this newsletter using the R gibasd@csaexp, .jc a ca Watch for the n this"edition.online'at WWN Csa=inter V,vi hues to improve its com- is across North America. iore chall enges than ever. .aLand gas certification, i � t� �__-. iallenges�We-invite you to e d6WI'or to estion: l.7nspectors Ilpdate,,s lap between th se sectors, page74-or by 'When we you will soon C Gas water heater spill test facility gears up Meet the Recall \ & I Team Alert hues to improve its com- is across North America. iore chall enges than ever. .aLand gas certification, i � t� �__-. iallenges�We-invite you to e d6WI'or to estion: l.7nspectors Ilpdate,,s lap between th se sectors, page74-or by 'When we you will soon C Gas water heater spill test facility gears up n.si E t i t � a:2 H``�.1�.Fv.tj� � ted; •, �,� i -r i �+ z #- '+� 3'�'y st t 45` - Z� ,3 e s' 1 ..9. -d — }:2,.. p..:h...�.;. Regulators can rely on the Audits and Investigations (A&I) Team when they need information about CSA -certified products or help investigating problems with these :)roducts. The Toronto team members can be reached through (416) 747-4000 or the email addresses listed below. Thee are (left to right): • Paul Schlote, Project Manager -Research. schlotep@csa.ca; • Special Services Investigators Ted (.lark, clarkt@csa.ca.. and Kent Pengelly, pengellk@csa.ca; • Sotoria Kamperogiannis, Assistant, kampers@c.sa.ca. • Daniel Langlois, Fire Investigator, langloid@cst.ca-, • Len Mitchell, Special Services Investlgalor. rnitchell@csa.ca; • Doug Geralde, Manager, gcralded@csa.ca or 14171.261307?con:pnsfrvc.co;.11 and. • Joe Gryn, Director, Engineering Quality ASSUrance, grynj@esa.ca (inset, far left). The)- work with (insets, left to right): • Special Services Investigators Doug Hann WOUICouVer), (604) 244-6559, hannd@csa.ca, and Jean -Yves Paquin (Montreal), (51.4) 428-2415, paquinj@csa.ca; • Blaine Lanning, Manager, Certification Services (Cleveland), (216) 524-4990, Ext. 8390, blanningFSias-us.org.. and • Jerry Moore, Manager, Inspection Services (Irvine, (..alit.), (949) 733-4304,'iiii6oreC,?ias-ns.o,r:;. Neer gas markVin 's FDu€Ic1 on ,Mue Star and Blue Fid -me recognition Regulators will .!ar! seeing two tit,\ CSA International markings, featuring elements of the well --known American Gas Association (A.G.A.) Blue Star and Canadian Gas Association (CGA) Blue to replace the existing seals r:e.`<!. Ve'2.r. (Sec box below) The blue tar and blue flame designs and circt.tlar outlines from the existing seals are being combined with the CSA monogram to create the new markings. "CS:; still Iias exclusive rights to these desions, although our time-limited lic,:•t:ct's to use the• complete A.G.A. and CGA seals are expiring,"says Doug Geralde_, ivtanager, Audits & Investigations (A&l). "Making the I OUIG,y p C Coy U.S. GAs r C. Canada I �. widely respected blue star and flamic designs hart of the new markings will help regulators and product users continue to recognize then:." CSA obtained its licences for exclusive use of the A.G.A. and CGA seals when it acquired international Approval Services, Inc. OAS) in 1997. The new markings will be phased in starting Jan. 1, 2000. The CS.A Blue Star must be used b) July 1, 2000 in the U.S. The CSA Blue Flame must be used by July 1, 2002 in Canada: They will be applied only to gas appli- ances and equipment to deneite compliance with all applicable gas, electrical and/or mechanical standards. Regulators may continue to see certified gas products bearin; the CSA monogram mark. Lcarn marc about the new gas markings by calling 1-800-463-6727 or ViSiting 1C1t-s, esu -i eiternntioncc►.org/etglilli/productse-rvices/index._ mark.ht11t. Click on RefNo: 99-012—April 5, 1.999. . .f ' e. "'+M x +s *t ,g��t t "" g iv^Ffa .a'+ } F1-' ��j . ir{' �+,a- ,. ez- j `°?" ,y"rS�°'S xY ..? :`�``.i<.1yr-..-eK r .t'-i'3„aa irf.=�1'N y l' r. Mark Rees Town Manager Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Sent via Certified Mail Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MLA, 01844-2669 LTJ Friday November 22, 2002 Re: 101 Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision: Serious Concerns Dear Mr Rees, RECEIVE NOV 2 5 2002 BUILDING DEPT. Thank you for seeing us on October 31 regarding concerns we had relating to the non- - .p compliant septic system at our new -construction property in the above subdivision. As we mentioned, we took over completion of our home in May 2001 from our former builder with a Homeowners' License Exemption for its completion prior to receiving occupancy for ourselves and our son. The reason for our letter to you is that we have been victimized to such an extent by officials in your charge, whom we consider to be both out of control and seemingly unaccountable, that a. strong protest from us is long overdue. First of all, we wish to inform you we have not, to date, responded to a barrage of written accusations placed into the public record about purported violation of regulations at our property. For reasons we cannot fathom, only Rubina has been singled out by your officials and had correspondence regarding these alleged infracdons addressed solely to her, despite the fact that we are both owners of record for our property. Yet, before these letters were sent, the officials concerned had met both of us. The matters referred to in their letters are not individual actions, such as personally observing Rubina engaging in a supposed violation, but of a general nature concerning our property as a whole. Officials in your charge at the very least should, as a matter of course, be versed in correct form for officially - generated paperwork. It is both negligent and discriminatory on their part to do otherwise. In light of the fact that one of the accusations, Rubina's alleged violation of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c.131, s40, constitutes a criminal act, this failure is particularly egregious. We intend in due course to answer every one of these allegations with factual information (including that from the public record and experts we have retained) to support our claim that they are unfair and many times incorrect. Our documentation also exposes your officials' double standards in its dealings with us and also their numerous failures to enforce and implement various state and local regulations amongst the licensed builders and contractors working in this subdivision. In the case of the situation regarding the septic system installation and non-compliance issues at our property, we consider the entire manner in which the process has been administered by your Board of Health to be so egregious in its performance and the conduct of its officials to be so unconscionable that we have filed a formal complaint with the Department of Environmental Protection. In addition, we have also included examples of numerous other irregularities of Title S of the state environmental code allowed by your Board of Health in this subdivision. However, despite the unpleasantness of the above scenario and the several months' setback we incurred to our original aim of final inspections and occupancy in the month of April, we thought we were on track to begin the administrative process again in August. Unfortunately, this process was once again made more time-consuming for us because of the manner in which certain officials in your charge have chosen to handle giving us these sign - offs. We have effectively been prevented from occupying our home in a reasonable time because some of the demands made are the exact opposite of reasonable and it would take months or years for us to comply, if ever. Although we are not professional builders, we assumed that North Andover town departments would show the same understanding and help that we have always experienced with the City of Methuen, where we have resided for eighteen years. We have not sought nor expected special treatment, but we took for granted, as a natural course of proceedings, fairness, impartiality, professionalism and above all competence on the part of your town officials connected with the building process. In turn, we realized we also had responsibilities to ensure work was completed to the satisfaction of applicable codes and if it was not, absent wanton disregard on our part, we expected your town would work with us in finding the best resolution. Instead, we are overwhelmed and exhausted with trying to comply with the kind of demands that have so far been sent our way. We have outlined two examples below of what we mean in terms of onerous and unreasonable. Example 1: Since mid-August we have been trying to receive a final sign -off from your fire inspector and have failed to date, not because of any wrong -doing on our part or faulty installation at our property, but because whoever was responsible for ensuring our former builder supplied interior sprinkler -system blueprints as a condition of receiving his Building Permit way back in December 1999 failed to do so. Not only have we have been given the burden of providing these blueprints before we can get a final sign -off from the fire inspector, but no attempt has been made to show any sensitivity to us for the enormous difficulties we have time and time again made known we are incurring in trying to get these blueprints. We have informed your fire inspector on numerous occasions that our former builder has not been able to track these down as the sprinkler -system company appears to have gone out of business. When we asked your Building Inspector, Mr McGuire, for suggestions for a solution, he most kindly interceded on our behalf and tried to see if one of the other builders in the subdivision could help out. Unfortunately, this avenue did not work out either. Since the same company originally supplied the sprinkler -system blueprints for the entire subdivision, we have suggested to your fire inspector to use the blueprints for Lot 7 (#132) because this property has an almost identical interior layout to ours. However, your fire inspector still insists we provide blueprints specifically for our property. It is now three months since we first requested a final sign -off from your fire inspector and there is no end in sight to our dilemma. Example 2: In this case, our plumber needed a final sign -off after he hooked -up our gas appliances in mid-August. Your gas inspector informed our plumber that we needed to provide UL certification for our gas range before our plumber could receive a sign -off for his work. Several days later, Rubina personally presented this certification to your gas inspector who at that point informed her we would not be receiving a final sign -off unless our range was also on the state's approval list. A few days later, your gas inspector informed our plumber we would also need UL certification for our gas wall oven and that it too would have to be on this `approval' list. Our plumber, licensed by the state as a Master Plumber, was completely bewildered by the request regarding presence on an approval list and informed us he could do no more for us regarding sign -off on our Building Permit. We too were completely bewildered by not being able to use gas appliances we had purchased through Massachusetts retailers and that had been hooked up to the gas supply by our plumber until we complied with these conditions. We subsequently informed your gas inspector that there was no UL certification for our gas wall oven and that neither our range nor wall oven were on the state's approval list. We asked your gas inspector how we could not automatically use gas appliances we had purchased brand new and that had been installed by a licensed plumber on a valid permit. But your gas inspector was adamant about us complying with his demands. The trauma caused us by our trying to comply with these conditions was not due to instructions being lost in translation by the time it went from your inspector via our plumber to us. We made sure that the various conditions our plumber related to us were actually as stated by directly asking the gas inspector himself to confirm them. It took four weeks of us going round in circles and getting nowhere in trying, but failing, to comply with what your gas inspector demanded. When we realized we could not, we then tried to get the Massachusetts retailers who sold us these perfectly-&wctrorzingappliances to take them back — but to no avail and we were left with appliances we could not use. Eventually, in complete exasperation because your gas inspector was insistent about his demands, we felt it was long overdue for our own investigation into how it could be that as homeowners who purchased gas appliances in Massachusetts we could never, supposedly, get approval from your gas inspector for using them. Firstly, we contacted the state gas/plumbing division and spoke to two officials, a state gas/plumbing inspector and the executive secretary of the gas and plumbing board, Mr Louis Visco. We gave the background to our quest for seeking a sign -off from our local gas inspector, that it was one month since our plumber's initial request and how conscientiously we had been trying to comply with our local inspector's demands. During these conversations, we learnt that the state actually recognized certification from numerous national testing laboratories and not just the one testing laboratory that had been demanded by your gas inspector, that all these laboratories were on a list published by the state and that our appliances could have certification from any one of these towards compliance. The reason this clarification was significant was because one of our gas appliances did not have the particular certification being demanded by your gas inspector. Mr Visco was genuinely concerned with the delay we had incurred thus far, informed us we could apply to the state for a hardship variance and that he would personally make sure he was present at the hearing in Boston. We were on the verge of mailing our variance request when we decided to make sure we had replacement gas appliances we could use as back-up. Imagine our surprise to find that not one of the six in -stock gas appliances we looked at in Massachusetts stores were on the state's approval list, including appliances by GE, Maytag and Whirlpool. Imagine our surprise at learning from the Customer Service departments of GE and Maytag that the companies would not entertain doing the administrative process for being added to Massachusetts' approval list and that this state was the only one in the entire country imposing this condition. Imagine our further surprise on discovering that none of the three homeowners we contacted in our subdivision had gas appliances that were on the approval list, neither at the time of their builders' sign -offs, nor yet to date. (The state has a service for checking if appliances on the approval list if manufacturer and model numbers are supplied.) At this point, we had had enough of trying to comply with such a ridiculous demand. Willis decided, by taking another (out of countless others) morning off work, to present all our findings to your gas inspector and for a coherent explanation for how the majority of consumers and homeowners purchasing gas appliances in Massachusetts could in theory never use them because most were not on the state's approval list, including ours. Before Willis could, get through even a quarter of these, your gas inspector informed him we could have our sign -off. A nightmare that could have been avoided from day one! Sincerely, f' Willis AM Hendley Rubina Hendley Enc: Photo of Willis and Rubina at son Imran's recent high-school graduation. Town of North Andover Community Development & Services Division, Customer Services Follow -Up Form. cc Heidi Griffin, Director Community Development and Services Division Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner Michael McGuire, Building Department Kathy McKenna, Planning Department Julie Parrino, Conservation Department J William Hmurciak, Director Public Works Department Rosemary Smedile, Chairman, Board of Selectman Y' 9 C• �� F _ Town of North Andover Community Development & Services Division Customer Service Follow Up Form Employee/Department Customer Was in Contact With: Instructions: Please ask the customer to rate the employee contact on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most positive rating. If the trait was not observed, or not applicable, write N/A. 1. Greeted customer in a cheerful manner. 2. Learned and used the customer's name. 3. Demonstrated full attention and appropriate listening skills. 4. Was polite during the transaction. 5. Expressed concern over the matter. 6. If a mistake was made took personal responsibility to see was corrected 7. Remained calm and receptive 8• Offered to explore options for solving the customer's problem 9• Before closing checked to see that all customer concerns were addressed 10. Explainpd policies and rules to customer's satisfaction 11. Closed the contact on a positive note. w Page 1 of 3 Tuesday, July 23, 2002 WMrYftf96 9M Prevenitan From $COM W Injuries In Me ,SAaweer, Bathtub, And Sink The auto-resettable anti -scald devices Each year, nearly 35,000 children ages 14 and under are treated in emergency rooms for burns from scalds. All national and regional code -making bodies have amended their plumbing code language to require anti -scald technology and a maximum water temperature of 120° in all newly constructed residential units. MemrySafeG Anti -Scald products install in minutes onto individual fixtures to reduce the risk of tap water scalding injuries in the kitchen and bathroom. The heart of each MemrySafe© system is a patented valve which reacts to temperature, not pressure. When the unit senses dangerous scalding water, it immediately reduces the flow to a. trickle. When the scalding temperature subsides, the unit automatically resumes normal flow. Significantly reduce the risk of tap water scalding injuries Groups at Highest Risk of Scalding Injuries: *Children (highest incidence rate) Adults over age 60 Physically or mentally challenged Reduces water flow to below 0.25 gpm before temperature exceeds 120° Applicable existing plumbing codes and proposed U.S. standards specify 120F as the safe and reasonable maximum temperature shutoff level (Exclusive Feature). Auto-settable: Exclusive Feature Easily installed - requires no specialized tools. Cost Effective! Resets when water temperature reaches safe level (avg. 980) DANGEROUS manual reset is not possible. V , -V Page 2 of 3 Tuesday, July 23, 2002 " ASTM F444-88 - U.S. Standard Consumer - Safety Specification for Scald -Preventing 'Devices and Systems in Bathing Areas.,,, ASSE 1062 - Temperature Actuated Flow Reducers for Individual Fixture Fittings. Australian Performance Standards - AS 3500.4 - Control bathroom outlet water temperature to < 120°F. Exclusively meets applicable U.S.�and international plumbing codes and standards, .' including: Approvals include: CSA- Canadian Standards Association WAWA- Western Australia Water Authority Allegheny County, PA Health Dept - Plumbing Division Reliable: 100% Product Testing Demonstrated Performance to 50,000 Actuations Made in the U.S.A.: Check out the full Specifications Sheet ¢ Ir�'r.Yt qtr s iK `"fig' 4a TechResults Inc. 51�evu70-40 137t h Street, Flushing, N.Y. 11367-1949 USA PHONE: (917) 817-3389 FAX: (718) 263-1259 -° infoCantiscald.com TechResults Inc is an authorized distributor of Memry Corp. MemrySafee products All Warranty and Product Liability is assumed solely by Memry Corp. hittp://www.antiscald.com/products.htm ,ftmrySafe® Page 1 of 3 Tuesday, July 23, 2002 9M Pr"entian From ScaldhW Infarles In the $Nower, Bathtub; And Sin* The auto-resettable anti -scald devices Hort tap water accounts for 24 percent of scald burns requiring hospitalization anion PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Lifetime Limited Warranty Made in the U.S.A. ShowerGuard® Model 10500 (Internal) Model 1.0531 (External) • Easily inserted into an existing shower unit. Just remove the shower head, place the ShowerGuard® into the shower arm and replace the shower head. • Fits shower arms with inside diameter of 0.65" - 0.68". . Flow Rate: 4 gpm at 60 psi. • Operating Pressures: 10 - 80 psi. e Dimensions: Length =1.5" Diameter = 0.65" F1owGuard® Model 11300 (O.D. - Outside Threading) Model 11320 (I.D. -Inside Threading) . Easily fits bathroom, kitchen, or utility sink - installed just like a MpmrySafe(t Page 2 of 3 standard aerator. • Flow Rate: 2.5 gpm (max.) at 80 psi. • Operating Pressures: 10 - 80 psi. • Dimensions: o Length: Model 11300 (0.925") o Model 11320 (1.125") • Connections: o Model 11300 (15/16 - 27 UNS) (Outside Threading) o Model 11320 (55/64 - 27 UNS) (Inside Threading) BathGuard® Model 11400 (Diverter) Model 11401 (Non-Diverter) Tuesday, July 23, 2002 • Model 11400 (Diverter) includes: BathGuard® valve, one tub spout, manual shutoff valve and adaptor fitting. • Model 11401 (Non-Diverter) includes:BathGuard® valve, one tub spout and adaptor fitting. • For more complete protection, BathGuard® should be installed with ShowerGuard® (Model 10500) insert. • Flow Rate: 12.5 gpm at 20 psi. • Operating Pressures: 5 - 80 psi. TechResults Inc. 70-40 137th Street, Flushing, N.Y. 11367-1949 USA PHONE: (917) 817-3389 FAX: (718) 263-1259 infoCkantiscald.com TechResults Inc is an authorized distributor of Memry Corp. MemrySafee products http://www.antiscald.com/specs.htm 248 CMR: BOARD OF STATE EXAMINERS OF PLUMBERS AND GAS FITTERS 2.10: continued (7) Urinals. (a) Urinal Fixtures. Only pedestal urinals and wall hung urinals with integral traps shall be approved and used. Said urinals shall be flushed only by means of an automatic flushing tank or flushometers equipped with an approved back flow preventer. (b) Automatic Flushing Tank. A tank which flushes more than one urinal shall be automatic in operation; and shall be of sufficient capacity to provide the necessary water to flush and cleanse properly all urinals simultaneously. (c) Materials Surrounding Urinals for Public or Semi -Public Use. The floor areas to one foot in front of the urinal lip and one foot on each side of the urinal, and the wall areas to four feet above the floor, shall be finished so as to be non-absorbent Wood and fiber boards are prohibited in the above noted areas. (d) Each urinal shall be side shielded for privacy. (8) Shower Baths. Stalls and Compartments. (a) Water Supply Riser. Every water supply riser from the shower valve to the shower head outlet, whether exposed or not, shall be securely attached to the structure. (b) Shower Waste Outlet Waste outlets, other than those in bathtubs, serving showers shall be at least two inches in diameter and have removable strainers not less than three inches in diameter having strainer openings not less than 1/4 inch in minimum dimension. Where each shower space is not provided with an individual waste outlet, the waste outlet must be so located and the floor so pitched that waste water from one shower does not flow over the floor area serving another shower. Waste outlets shall be securely fastened to the waste pipe making a watertight connection thereto. (c) Shower Compartments. Shower compartments shall have at least 900 square inches of floor area and be not less than 30 inches in minimum dimension measured from its finished interior dimension as the side of a rectangle, altitude of a triangle or diameter of a circle or other angular shape. The minimum required area and dimension shall be J measured from its finished interior dimension at a height equal to the top of the threshold and at a point tangent to the centerline of the threshold. The wall area above built-in tubs having installed shower heads and in shower compartments shall be constructed of smooth, noncorrosive, and non-absorbent, waterproof materials to a height not less than six feet abovethe floor level. Such walls shall form a watertight joint with each other and with either the tub, receptor, or shower floor. Waste outlets for individual shower compartments shall be sized two inches. (d) Shower Floors or Receptors. Floors or receptors under shower compartments shall be laid on or be supported by a smooth and structurally sound base. Floors under shower compartments, other than those laid directly on the ground surface or where prefabricated receptors have been provided, shall be lined and made watertight by the provision of suitable shower pans of durable material. Such pans shall tum up on all sides at least above the finished threshold level. Pans shall be securely fastened to the waste outlet at the seepage entrance making a watertight joint between the pan and the outlet Floor surfaces shall be constructed of smooth, noncorrosive, nonabsorbent, and waterproof materials. (e) Shower Controls. 1. When a flow control valve or shower head designed for tight shut-off is installed on the outlet pipe from a shower control unit, checks shall be provided in the hot and cold water supplies to the unit to prevent by-passing of hot or cold water. The above shall not be required when shower control unit is designed to prevent bypassing. 2. All showers, shower stalls, shower compartments, gang showers, and shower baths, either multiple or single, shall be equipped with an approved adjustable self-cleaning and draining shower head. The water supply to said shower head shall be supplied through an approved individual single handle thermostatic and/or pressure balancing device. The device shall contain means for a maximum temperature setting to prevent water from being delivered from the shower head in excess of 112T. Said device shall be designed to prevent bypassing and to prevent any sudden temperature changes when valve is set at the desired setting and connected to hot and cold water supply lines that have balanced hydrostatic pressures. 12/1/93 248 CMR - 67 2.10: continued 248 CNIR: BOARD OF STATE EXA_W_NTRS OF PLUNMERS r1ND GAS FITTERS A central type automatic temperature control valve may be used in lieu of individual automatic mixing valves, provided the temperature control valve permits a maximum temperature of 112°F to the hot water supply of the shower control during all periods when showers are in use. A thermometer is required in the outlet piping of the central control for inspection and adjustment of temperature. Check valves are required on the hot and cold inlets to the central control valve. The automatic temperature control valve described above is a secondary control for hot water supply to shower stations and is in addition to primary control used to maintain the water temperature in the domestic hot water system. When the temperature in the hot water supply piping to shower stations is controlled as described above, individual shower controls may be two -valve type, single valve or any acceptable mixing valve. 3. All automatic temperature control devices shall be adjusted by the installing plumber, prior to the Final Inspection (248 CMR 2.04(11)(c)), to deliver water at a safe and useable temperature, but in no case to exceed 110°F to 112°F. (9) Food -Waste Grinder Units. (a) Residential or Domestic Food -Waste Grinder -Waste Outlets. Domestic food -waste grinder units shall be connected to a drain of not less than 1'/2 inches in diameter. (b) Commercial Food -Waste Grinder Outlets. Commercial food -waste grinder units shall be connected to a drain of sufficient size to serve the unit, but in no case connected to a drain of less than two inches in diameter. Commercial food -waste -grinder units shall be connected and trapped separately from other fixtures or compartments. They shall be separately connected to the stack or main drain. (c) Nater Supply Required. All food -waste grinder units shall be provided with an adequate supply of water in sufficient flow rate to insure proper functioning of the unit. (d) Grinder Units Not to Be Connected with Grease InterccZors. No food -waste grinder unit shall be connected so as to discharge through a grease interceptor. (10) Drinking Fountains (a) Desi= and Construction. A drinking fountain shall conform to the listed ANSI standard in Table I in 248 CMR 2.06. (b) Protection of Water Supply. Stream projectors shall be assembled to provide an orifice elevation as specified by ANSI Air Gaps in Plumbing Systems and ANSI Backflow Preventers In Plumbing Systems. See Table 1 in 248 CMR 2.06. (11) Floor Drains and Area Drains. (a) Floor Drains. 1. Floor drains shall have integral or separate traps having a minimum water seal of three inches and shall be provided with removable strainers. The floor drain shall be so constructed that it can be readily cleaned, and the drain inlet shall be easily accessible at all times. Floor drains subject to backflow shall be provided with back water valves. 2. Size of Floor Drains. Floor drains shall be of a size to serve efficiently the purpose for which they are intended, but the outlet pipe shall not be less than two inches in nominal diameter. 3. Proper installation and Protection AEainst Loss of Trn 4 nl. All floor drains when installed shall be of an approved design and shall be installed at a grade to permit floor drainage to it from all directions. Floor drains, which in the opinion of the local plumbing inspector may be subject to evaporation, shall be installed with an approved, readily accessible automatic trap priming device. 4. Hazardous Wastes. Floor drains which may receive hazardous waste shall comply with 248 CMR 2.13. 8/9/96 249 CMR - 68 248 CMR: BOARD OF STATE EXAMINERS OF PLUMBERS AND GAS FITTERS 5.00: continued 5.1.1 Revise the Section as Follows: Appliances, Accessories and Equipment to comply with Standard Requirements. All gas appliances, accessories and gas utilization equipment shall comply as follows. (a) All residential appliances shall be certified by the American Gas Association or other nationally recognized testing agency, constructed in accordance with applicable American National Standards (ANSI), and approved by the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters. (b) Commercial and Industrial equipment that is not certified by the American Gas Association or other nationally recognized testing agency acceptable to the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters shall not be installled unless approved by the local gas inspector in accordance with Pan 8 of the Modification Section entitled Procedures for the Initial Operation of Industrial Gas Equipment. (c) A List of Reference Standards acceptable to the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters is provided in Appendix A of ANSI 2223.1 - NFPA 54 1988. It may be referred to for the installation of specific equipment. (d) A list of National Testing Laboratories acceptable to the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters follows: American Gas Association Laboratories 8501 East Pleasant Valley Rd Cleveland, Ohio 44131 ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. Industrial Park Cortland, New York 13045 Factory Mutual Research Corporation 1151 Boston-Providencc Turnpike Norwood, Massachusetts 02062 Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. 333 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062 United States Testing company, Inc. Tulsa Division 1341 No. 108th East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74116 Applied Research Laboratories 5371 North West 161 Street Miami, Florida 33014 Household gas cooking appliances only. National Sanitation Foundation Ann Arbor, Michigan Testing facility for plastic only. Warnock Hersey Intemational, Inc. Wisconsin Division 8612 Fairway Place Middleton, Wisconsin 53562 Canadian Standards Association Rexdale, Ontario MOW 1 R3 12/1!93 24X CMR • 163 Nic6tta, Robert To: Griffin, Heidi Cc: D'Agata, Donna Mae Subject: 101 Cricket Lane — Plumbing Inspector Complaint Good Morning Heidi — My e-mail is not working and as a result this correspondence will be given to the Administrative Assistant for distribution to you. Attached is Plumbing / Gas Inspector Diozzi's report on the referenced complaint. Also included is a copy of the applicable plumbing / gas code on appliances. It is evident by Mr. Diozzi's report that he was protecting the health and safety of Mr. and Mrs. Hendley and Family by not allowing a code water temperature over 112 degrees, which would have caused scalding of persons taking showers or bathing. I am of the opinion that Mr. Diozzi followed correct proceedure checking with the proper State Authorities for the product approval number when he did not recognize the Manufacturer of the appliance. It also is not the failure of the Pumbing / Gas Inspector to sign off if the State Board of Examiners of Plummers and Gas Fitters did not have up to date product approval numbers available. Once again the Inspector was doing his job. For your information, I have included a memorandum from Mr. Rick Welch removing himself as Builder of Record for the 101 Cricket Lane residence after his sale of the property to Mr. and Mrs. Hendley. Additionally, I have attached a Homeowner License Exemption applied for and issued to Willis & Rubina Hendley on May 24, 2001. The exemption states in part " The undersigned "homeowner" assumes responsibility for compliance with the State Building Code and other Applicable codes, by-laws, rules and regulations. The undersigned "homeowner" certifies that he/she understands the Town of North Andover Building Department minimum inspection proceedures and requirements and that he/she will comply with said proceedures and requirements". .41 A person/firm engaged in constructing a dwelling must have a construction supervisor license. A home owner constructing there own dwelling, with a Home Owners Exemption must abide by the same regulations as a licensed contractor/builder. I am of the opinion that the above compliant has been addressed the same as a licensed contractor inspection and the exemption does not grant deviation from the applicable codes. Page 1 of 2 From: Jim John Ryan oryan@townofnorthandover.comj To: Nicetta, Robert Cc: D'Agata, Donna Mae Subject: RE: 101 Cricket Lane I was called to do a final plumbing and gas inspection. i started the inspection with the plumber mr. john donavan, when i went to check the temperature at the shower vales he informed me that the valves he installed were not a pressure balancing valve as required by code and he could not get the water temperature down to 112 degrees as required by code. the home owner installed a temp. reducing device which still did not get the temperature down to 112 degrees, the plumber removed the existing valves and installed the proper ones and i then signed off on the plumbing. in regards to my inspection of the gas system i asked the plumber where the name plate was so i could check to see if it has a approved testing stamp on it. He informed that he could not find it so told him to have the home owner bring the literature in so i could see if anything was in there. In the mean time where i did not reconize the manufacture so i check with the state to see if it had a product approval number which it did not, also i was informed that the state was in the process of finding out that the manufacture have not been keeping there approvals current and they were going to have a meeting regarding this problem and we were to inforce the code until they decided on what to do which they did my given them some to update there approval and in the mean time the inspectors could approve the appliance as long as it had the proper testing data which i did and signed off on the gas. When the home owner talked to mr. Visco he told her about the product approval numbers which they did not mention in there letter. Also the homeowner called the state on more than one occasion, they cheked with the state on whatever i told them to make sure i was correct amd telling them the truth, which they were informed that everything i told was correct in that i was inforcing the mass plumbing and gas code. as i have in the past and will continue to do so in the future, i will not compromize the safty and health of the public even through it might cause minor inconvience for someone..See attach regarding the code we are talking about. -----Original Message----- From: Griffin, Heidi Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:46 AM To: Nicetta, Robert; Parrino, Julie; Lagrasse, Brian CC: McKenna, Kathleen; Diozzi, Jimmy; DeCola, Jimmy; Santilli, Ray Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Hello to All: Can you please draft a written response to Ms. Hendley's letter dated Friday November 22, 2002 (accordingly). Obviously each respective department should answer to her allegations concerning their department. I will then take your written responses that you will email me, and merge them into one document to formulate a response letter (excluding the fire department inspector allegation) on the Town Manager's behalf. I will require a response by 2:00 p.m. tomorrow. If you have appointments in the morning, please clear your calendars appropriately so that I can have a response by the 2:00 P.M. deadline. Your response does not need to be as lengthy as Mr. Hendleys' allegations, rather please just specifically answer her allegations/questions at hand. I realize the budgets were due today and apologize for the quick deadline. However, hopefully you can each understand the importance of responding to this letter as her allegations, when all added together, appear to be preparation for a lawsuit. Kathy, you are copied because although you do not have to respond, the letter is entitled "Walnut Ridge Subdivision, Serious Concerns". This is to keep you in the loop as the status of the subdivision. Ray, you are being copied as the Town Managers' ombudsmen on resident complaints so you are aware of the status of our expedient response to this letter. 11/26/02 A. TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER OFFICE OF TOWN MANAGER 120 MAIN STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 Mark H. Rees Town Manager December 9, 2002 Mr. Willis and Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley: ,6 NO Telephone (978) 688-9510 l p FAX (978) 688-9556 I am in receipt of your correspondence dated November 22, 2002 regarding your serious concerns at the Walnut Ridge Subdivision. I will try to answer your concerns in the order in which you presented them in your correspondence. 1. Ms. Hendley allegedly being singled out: In speaking with my staff, it appears as though the majority of their conversations have been with Ms. Hendley regarding concerns at your lot. As such, my staff addressed and/or spoke with Ms. Hendley as she, not you, frequented the offices at Community Development on a regular basis during the last few months and served as the primary contact for your concerns. However, we will note your concern that some of this correspondence has been directly addressed to Mr. Hendley and in the future will be addressed to both of you as property owners. 2. Exam 1p e #1: (Mark, please have Andy Melnikas respond to these allegations as he is the fire inspector who was in contact with the Hendleys for town) 3. Exam 1p e #2: The town's plumbing and gas inspector, Mr. James Diozzi indicated that he performed an inspection with the plumber, Mr. John Donovan. Mr. Diozzi indicated that when he went to check the temperature at the shower valves the plumber informed him that the vales were not a pressure balancing valve as required by code and that he could not get the water temperature down to 112 degrees as required by code. Allegedly, you as the homeowners had installed a temperature reducing device which still did not get the temperature down to the required 112 degrees. The plumber then removed the existed valves and installed the proper ones whereby Mr. Diozzi signed off on the plumbing. In regards to Mr. Diozzi's inspection of the gas system, Mr. Diozzi asked the plumber where the name plate was located on the gas appliance in order to see if it had an approved testing stamp on it. The plumber informed Mr. Diozzi that he could not find the approved stamp so Mr. Diozzi asked the plumber to have you, as the homeowners, provide literature on the product to research it further. During the interim, Mr. Diozzi contacted the state as he did not recognize the manufacture of the gas appliance in order to see it had a product approval number, which it did not. Mr. Diozzi was also informed that the state was in the process of finding out that this particular manufacturer had not been keeping their approvals current and they were going to have a meeting with the manufacturer and in the meanwhile the state instructed Mr. Diozzi to enforce the code until the state decided on what do with this issue. As you yourself indicated in your letters, you had called the state on more than one occasion to doublecheck that the gas inspector was telling the truth. When Mr. Diozzi received confirmation from the state that he could sign off on your gas inspection upon receipt of proper testing data, he did so. Also, in regards to this matter is important to point out that both you and your husband applied for and received a Homeowner License Exemption on May 24, 2001. The exemption states in part that the undersigned "homeowner" assumes responsibility for compliance with the State Building Code and other applicable codes, by-laws, rules and regulations. The undersigned homeowner certifies that he/she understands that the Town of North Andover Building Department minimum inspection procedures and requirements and he/she will comply with said procedures and requirements. Typically, a person/firm engaged in constructing a dwelling must have a construction supervisor license, unless a homeowner constructing there own dwelling receives a homeowner exemption, which you both did. However, this exemption means that the homeowner must abide by the same regulations as a licensed contractor/builder. 4. Septic System Installation: The septic system design for your lot was not approved until November 4, 2002 and a Disposal Construction Works permit has not been obtained or paid for by a septic installer licensed in North Andover as of this date. As such, a request for a Certificate of Compliance is slightly premature at this time. It is my understanding that you had a subcontractor start working on retaining wall (a component of the approved septic design) who was not licensed in the Town, and you began this work without a Disposal Construction Works permit. Mr. LaGrasse went to the site and informed you that you did not have a permit to do the work and must stop all construction activity immediately. Furthermore, Mr. LaGrasse instructed you to have a licensed installer obtain the proper permit and pay the associated fees. This type of septic system design is a common occurrence in North Andover and numerous installers perform this type of work on a routine basis. The installer you refer to in your correspondence to Sandra Starr dated November 22, 2002 indicated to Mr. LaGrasse that he knew the history of this site and the relationship that you as homeowners had with the previous installer, and due to this history they were now respectfully declining to perform further work on your property. In a letter to you dated (Brian, fill in blanks and give me a copy of the letter to attach) you were both aware this wall was part of the septic design and commenced the work anyway, with blatant and deliberate disregard for the Massachusetts General Laws and the North Andover Septic Regulations. At this point, the town can no longer have Mr. LaGrasse and/or Ms. Starr continue to perform inspections due to your perceptions of "mishandling, incompetence and misconduct..." and due to the fact that your letter states you have filed a formal complaint against my staff to the Department of Environmental Protection. As such, in order to ensure to you that we are providing a neutral environment, we will have the town's outside septic consultant, Mr. John Noonan, perform inspections at your site. Unfortunately, as Mr. Noonan is not an employee of the town, there will be fees associated with his inspection costs which you will be responsible form, however, I believe this is a solution which will best work to rectify any allegations of incompetence from my staff. Page 1 of 1 Nicetta, Robert From: Santilli, Ray Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:54 AM To: Nicetta, Robert Subject: RE: 101 Cricket Lane That'sfine. Enjoy your new year holiday and time off. SantM Assistant Town Manager & Human Resources Director -----Original Message ---- From: Nicetta, Robert Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:54 AM To: Santilli, Ray Subject: RE: 101 Cricket Lane Good Morning Ray — I have spoken to Jimmy Diozzi and he will make the meeting. I will be on vacation January 2nd, however I will notify Mike McGuire to attend as he is the Inspector of Record and has been involved from the start of the Hendley project. Please let me know if this does not meet with your approval. M 12/26/02 -----Original Message ----- From: Santilli, Ray Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:29 AM To: Griffin, Heidi; Dolan, Chief William; Melnikas, Lt. Andrew; Nicetta, Robert; Starr, Sandy; Lagrasse, Brian; Diozzi, Jimmy; Parrino, Julie Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Town Manager Mark Rees would like to have a meeting with all involved in the permitting and approval processes for 101 Cricket Lane (The Hendleys). The meeting will be on Thursday, January 2, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. in the meeting room at Town Hall. Please bring with you any appropriate file(s) you may need to refer to. Thanks aV Sa eU i Assistant Town Manager & Human Resources Director Av oAlcjfc-& /w. J a K ©O is i/ r¢ vt. r U., C fit t�4' tit.► G ti'' �a H ¢ C I� c D ✓- G c �'q �w iG G� 1/�Q t+ i '04L? /H r cm`s. �►- Gam► c 1,,-(1*7L Ale A -c w -c k e Toot. o L cc v, -6K ,w { d cc A, -c ll n c L�;�"c c.`9.0 c r K, c A t- `c- a -F !9 /;%t 0- p r C, J b 'op LSH cam - L ti� r 101 -CA �� �,,�t-,r r l��r -� O t,... < p ec.n. z r.• t k -S �iw c l -o -At ,,4. C v t G `t 6 !� z S�0 w ccr / ('i/'` 9 0 %k-t-� v c /-� 6 G e r o: o L wAPL- r Cj cow L cr c� c c c cae. L C( 1-,te f 60-1�It, 4 •n c Vu loov c IoLf2L•---T L L P G� �i �t�-, /,y .4 ti G! 4-4.� Aov-,4 ice' !" /t{ rJ Gl c f /3/t/� /it tr �i C - � w l� c �� ac 9 (, I"t-%-L IL e C- {T/O � j�f -G�!/ '"! � c R .c f4.Ew► �o �./w�L � G C. it q. G-•� . 74 �- ��✓ 1 1 1A,!gi C c.hfnY-�-'�.r S `4�(c�t' C A wT� o C. LA_- ^/",0# Il{ If 11 -ALL C 'C li T I`/ � c� b'✓ �ii { ��r: C/t f cies-.. �f' /,�,fl'o G!!f � I• :.. D G� Q t �. aG� /9t�lo�-s se Lfy. �'�ec o wt 2:�cf �fCs�/kJ ! 9tss c y /'L �� t o �. �- C .�o��-•.-cep �t c� � � I�¢yr r % J /8�-e � %�f',,,�''�e ° '' `c.-� � :}�� f � - . �a /bZ K � d r � �-69'k- `_'it'/v�-•.* l. -r i �c.>' !p 1-' i��a,..., d z k f /�-•- c� C�-�� GA- t G ( A,a C A,4 K' 1 c Puk el h 14. e o A..0 Z- S, LA,� C'. 4Dx�,, c- O u /ic c Gc �(O L h..- -ra *4 U (.f C o h -c L cl 4 e- A /go — " - ?q -c .-O"10A 4 �, jj ( #:, a, Z, I t -l", d,-� kv4, -t- 6 w */! v 1" 4rot -c I t C74y ^ 1 /Z ./- r v,, �At-VL 4.71 e.'.. v -'.r • ., .. c( c t j4a-c # 144 *-+G c c V- d¢ S C a A A-rc t• !ic G. r v1 -r r �''tr c %��. •� � 4 4a-rr P) o= F- , J 4 o h > fD CD rt I 00 r+ mw CD (D 0 0 o� opi, r� NF l November 7, 2005 Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS Health Director North Andover Health Department 400 Osgood Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 RE: Septic System Repair Inspection, 101 Cricket Lane, Map 107A, Lot 286 Dear Ms. Sawyer, Mill River Consulting performed a final construction inspection for the repair to the soil absorption system at 101 Cricket Lane on November 1, 2005. Construction was performed by Joseph R. (Buddy) Watson. The plan date was 11/24/2003, and the BOH approval date on the plan was 12/16/2003. During our inspection, we verified that the length of the trench addition was per plan, that appropriate stone was used in the trench, and that the pipe elevations of the addition provide proper fall from the existing distribution box to the tie-in to the existing leaching line. The following elevations were recorded at the site: Distribution box outlet 198.01 (Used as base elevation) Start of lateral 197.79 End of Addition 197.71 End of Lateral 197.47 Please feel free to contact me should any questions arise. Sincerely, Andrew McBrearty Project Manager LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL North Andover Health Department 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax healthdept(a,townofnorthandover.com - E-mail '4S www.townofnorthandover.com - Website I Page—/ of Owe— orz Q �t.S0 +6 Ilk 04 'war coc.xc„awux � 1' TO: DATE: COMPANY: FROM: Pamela DelleChiaie, Heaft Depadment Assistant Phone: Ax RE Fax: / /U• 7//57 e&'11S We are sending you: OCopy of Letter OPlans OOther ill in below) These are transmitted as checked below: ➢ OAppmmdasNoted ➢ OForRmmandoonmieW ➢ OAsReque" ➢ OFor Your Use ➢ OAsRegdred ➢ OResubn* aViesfor ➢ OForAppirmW appma ➢ OSubmit owifffor &it REMARKS: r COPY TO: COPY TO: SIGNED: , COPY TO: It OCT 20,2005 12:40 J W WATSrl*'- JR. INC. 978-475-0413 10/19/2005 14:53 9786888476 HFALTH wSTALLF,R PROJFCT MANAGEMENT OBLIGATIONS 2az Page 2 P4CE 02/02 As the Notch Andover licensed installer for the constructiosi of the septic system for the property at/ r _relative to the application of & dated ofor plans by gZ e and dated P with revisions dated T understand the following obligations for management of this project: 1. As the installer I am obligated to obtain all permits and Board of Health approved plans prior to performing any work on a site, i must have the approved plans and the permit on site when any work is being done. 2. As the installer I must call for any and all inspections. If homeowner, contractor, project manger, or any other person not associated with my company schedules an inspection and tits system is not ready then item three shall be applicable. 3. As the installer I ata rcquirod to have the necessary work completed prior to the applicable inspection as indiwexi below. I understand that requesting an inspection, without completion of the items in accordance with Tile 5 and the Board of Health Regulations may reslilt in a $50.00 fine being levied against my company. a) Bottom of Bed - generally first inspection unless there is a retaining wail which should he done first, hwaller must requvst the inspection but does not have to be present, b) Final inspection — Engineer must first do their inspection for elevations, ties, stc. As -built or verbal OK from engineer must be submitted to Board of Fleahh. after, which installer calls for inspection. time. Tn&mller must be present for this inspection. With pomp system all electrical work must be ready and able to cause pump to work and alarm to function. G) Final Grade — installer mw;t request inspection when all grading is complete. Does not have to be on site, 4. As the installer i understand that only I may perform the work (other than simple excavation) required to complete the installation of the system identified in they attached application for in%tallation. I further understand that work by others unlitensed to install septic systems in North Andover can ctmgtitute reasons for denial of the system, and/or, revocation or suspension of my license to operate in the Town of North Andover, significant fines to all persons involved are also possible. 5, As the Installer I understand that I must be on site during the performance of the following construction steps: a) Determination that the proper elevation of the excavation has been rearhPr.{, b) Jnspection of the sand and stone to be used. c) Final inspection by Board of Iacalth staff or consultant, d) Instalhttion of tank, D -box, pipes, stone, vent, pump chamber, retaining wall and other components, 6. As the installer I understand that I am solely responsible for the installation of the system as per the approved plans, No instructions by the homeowner, general contractor,. or any other persons shall absolve me of this obligation. Unders gncd ILicensed Septic installer �. ' l Date: t'"ejo a a� c a� 2 M 0') C: D -0 N 0600 r N O L(i It L 00 r _ 0 Q O .0 O OO _ L Z 0-0 O Q - -� C: 0 O O O -21—�Z INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS Yes NO Initials A. Bottom of Bed z)- - 1. Excavation to proper depth Z-� 2. With trenches, sides of excavation are beneath B horizon 3. Edge of excavation specified distance from foundation, etc. 6�- Comments: B. Retaining Wall 1. Wall height and width as specified 2. Waterproofed 3. Wall minimum 10' to leaching facility 4. Wall meets specifications of plan Comments: C. Building Sewer 1. Pipe diameter minimum 4" 2. Schedule 40 pipe 3. Watertight joints 4. Inlet to tank cemented 5. Slope minimum 0.01 or 1/8" per foot minimum 6. Pipe properly set on compact firm base 7. Pipe laid on continuous grade in straight line 8. Cleanouts precede all change in alignment and grade 9. Manholes at any 90° change 10. 10' minimum offset to water line Comments: D.. Septic Tank 1. Level f/ 2. 1,500 gal minimum !/ 3. Gas baffle present on outlet 4. Manhole to grade 5. Manholes over center and each tee 6. 3-20" manholes 7. Inlet tee minimum 12" under invert 8. Outlet tee minimum 14" under invert 9. Outlet line cemented 10. Air space 3" above tees 11. 2" - 3" drop from inlet to outlet 12. Pipe set 13. Compact base with 6" of 1/4" crushed stone under tank 14. Tank is watertight Comments: Yes NO E. Pump Chamber 1. If separate from tank, compact base with 6" of 3/4" stone underneath 2. Minimum 2" pipe to d -box if gravity system 3. 20" access manhole 4. Tank level 5. Watertight 6. Tank size agrees with plan specification 7. Manhole to grade 8. Check valve and bleeder hole present 9.. Alarm in building on separate circuit 10. Alarm functions 11. Manual operating switch 12. Pump delivers liquid to d -box Comments: F. Distribution Box I. D -box level 2. Minimum 0. IT' (2") drop from inlet to outlet 3. Minimum 6" sump U 4. Outlet pipes show equal distribution \L ✓ 5. Compact base with 6" of stone beneath box Imo_ 6. Box is watertight 7. All lines cemented with hydraulic cementy 8. Schedule 40 pipe U/ Comments: G. Soil Absorption system 1. All stone double -washed -'h" - 1 %2" - pea stone Bucket test done? 2. Minimum T'. of pea stone above distribution lines 3. Minimum 6" stone beneath pipe 4. Distribution lines capped or connected together 5. Grading meets 3:1 slope 6. Minimum of 9" of fill graded over system i 7. Toe of slope stops minimum 5' from edge of property; if not, then swale. Comments: H. Leach Trenches 1. Minimum 2 trenches i 2. Length of trenches agree with plan. (Max. length 100') 3. Width of trenches agree with plan - Minimum 2% maximum - 4'. 4. Vent present if <50 feet or specified 5. Distance between trenches minimum 4' and maximum of 6' 6. Minimum distance between trenches 10'- 7. Pipe slope minimum 0.005 or 6" per 100' �- 8. Depth of trenches below outlet invert minimum of 6". Yes NO 9. Pipes set on stable base. b� Comments: I. Leach Field 1. Maximum length of field 100' 2. Pipe slope minimum 0.005 or 6" per 100' 3. Separation between pipe 6' maximum 4. Pipes connected at end 5. Separation between adjacent fields 10' minimum 6. Pipes set on stable base 7. Maximum 4' separation from edge of field to first line 8. Minimum two distribution lines 9. Maximum perc rate 20 mpi Comments: I Leaching Pits 1. Minimum inlet pipe 4" 2. Pits of concrete 3. Sidewall between 12" and 48" wide 4. Access manholes on each pit 5. Pipes cemented with hydraulic cement Comments: K. Final Grade 1. Slope over soil absorption system minimum 0.02 2. All system components covered by at least 9" soil _ 3. Cover soil free of stones larger than 6" _ 4. Grading slopes away from dwelling 5. No areas over system that may pond _ Del leCh iaie,- Pamela Ave cx From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 2:39 PM To: 'Daniel Ottenheimer (E-mail)'; 'Lisa LeVasseur (E-mail)'; 'McBrearty Andrew (E-mail)' Subject: 101 Cricket Lane - Final Inspection Can you do this one also when you are here for Foster Street? Thank you. Buddy Watson is the installer: 508.932.3204 8est ROOMds, P4#11044 D¢BBBG�lfiwi¢ Health Department Assistant Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax http://www.townofnorthandover.com healthdept@townofnorthandover.com 1 'TOWN OF NORTH A NDOVER A0RT#j Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 S�cHus Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS 978.688.9540 — Phone Public Health Director 978.688.8476 — FAX SITE CONDITIONS 1. Existing septic tank properly abandoned... ❑ 2. Internal plumbing all to one building sewer... ❑ 3. Topography not appreciably altered... ❑ SEPTIC TANK 1. Bottom of tank hole has 6" stone base... ❑ 2. Weep hole plugged... ❑ 3. Tank has been installed (H-10 or H-20) Tank Size: 1,000;1,500; Other Monolithic or 2 piece (circle) ... ❑ 4. Water tightness of tank has been achieved (Visual)... ❑ 5. Inlet tee installed, under access port... ❑ 6. Outlet tee (gas baffle or effluent filter) installed, under access port... ❑ 7. Cover to within 6" of final grade installed over one access port, must be over outlet of tank if effluent filter is present - Inches of Tank... ❑ 8. Hydraulic cement around inlet & outlet... ❑ Comments: PUMP CHAMBER 1. Bottom of tank hole has 6" stone base... ❑ 2. Weep hole plugged... ❑ 3. Pump Chamber Installed Gallons; (H-10 or H-20) (Monolithic or 2 piece) (circle) 4. Inlet tee installed, under access port... ❑ 5. Pump(s) installed on stable base ... ❑ 6. Alarm Float Working... ❑ 7. Pump On/Off Float Working... ❑ 8. Total # of Floats... 9. Drain hole in pressure line... ❑ 10. Cover to within 6" of final grade installed over one access port... ❑ 11. Water tightness of tank has been achieved - Visual or Vacuum Test or Water held for 24 hours (circle) 12. Hydraulic cement around inlet & outlet... ❑ Comments: Page 2 of 4 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER NoRT►; `y` Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 3,S ,AC E<� SACNUS Susan Y. Sawyer, RENS/RS Public Health Director D -BOX 1. Installed on stable stone base... ❑ 2. Inlet tee (if pumped or >0.08'/foot)... ❑ 3. Hydraulic cement around inlet & outlets... ❑ 4. Observed even distribution... ❑ 5. Speed levelers provided (not required)... ❑ Comments: 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - FAX SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM 1. Bottom of SAS excavated down to C Soil Layer, as provided on plan... ❑x 2. Size of SAS excavated as per plan... ❑x * 3. Title 5 sand installed, if specified on plan... ❑x 4. 3/4-1 /2" double washed stone installed... ❑ 5. 1/8-1/2" (pea stone) double washed stone installed... ❑ 6. Laterals installed and ends connected to header (and vented if impervious material above) ... ❑ 7. Orifices @ 5 & 7 o'clock positions... ❑ 8. Gravel -less disposal systems: type, number and location as per plan... ❑ 9. Elevations of laterals installed as on approved plan... ❑ 10. 40 Mil HDPE barriers installed... ❑ 11. Retaining wall (boulder / concrete / timber / block) ... ❑ 12. Final cover as per plan ... ❑ Comments: PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION 1. # of Inches in Manifold 2. Laterals installed with end sweeps; Size: Material: 3. Squirt Test: Feet in height 4. Equal distribution to all laterals 5. Orifice size inch as per plan Comments: CONTROL PANEL 1- Alarm & Pump are on separate circuits... ❑ 2. Alarm sounds when float is tripped... ❑ 3. Location of control panel: 4. Rated for exterior if placed outside... ❑ Comments: Page 3 of 4 .Zwd -- j% TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET `► c, "+" NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS 01845cHu CHU s�se Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS 978.688.9540 — Phone Public Health Director 978.688.8476 — FAX SEPTIC SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION NOTES LOCATION INFORMATION ADDRESS: 101 Cricket Lane MAP: LOT: INSTALLER: Buddy Watson DESIGNER: Norse Env. PLAN DATE: 12/16/03 BOH APPROVAL DATE ON PLAN: 11/24/03 INSPECTIONS DATE OF BED BOTTOM INSPECTION: 10/31/05 - Michele Grant DATE OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION: // % s�-S'�;�' / �✓ 'r DATE OF FINAL GRADE INSPECTION: SELECT SYSTEM TYPE 1. GRAVITY DISTRIBUTION... ❑ 2. PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION... ❑ 3. PRESSURE DOSING... ❑ 4. HOLDING TANK... ❑ 5. ADVANCED TREATMENT... ❑ 6. OTHER... COMPONENT SUMMARY FROM PLAN 1. GALLON TANK = 1000 2. LOADING OF SEPTIC TANK = 1500 3. GALLON PUMP CHAMBER = 4. LOADING OF PUMP CHAMBER = 5. TYPE OF SAS = 6. DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS OF SAS: Comments: Cut off at end of trench and add onto the other end of trench #2. Hole was 11 plus 5' over total length with 16.8. Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF NORTH .ANDOVER Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 S V S f N0RTM-1 - - u: b.. oL I. p 41 ,SSACHUSEt usan awyer, RENS RS 978.688.9540 —Phone Public Health Director 978.688.9542 — FAX SEPTIC TANK ❑ Bottom of tank hole has 6" stone base ❑ Weep hole plugged ❑ gallon tank has been installed (H-10 or H-20) (monolithic or 2 piece) ❑ Watertightness of tank has been achieved (Visual or Vacuum Test or Water held for 24hrs) ❑ Inlet tee installed, under access port ❑ Outlet tee (gas baffle or effluent filter) installed, under access port ❑ inch cover to within 6" of final grade installed over one access port, must be over outlet of tank if effluent filter is present ❑ Hydraulic cement around inlet & outlet Comments: PUMP CHAMBER ❑ Bottom of tank hole has 6" stone base ❑ Weep hole plugged ❑ gallon Pump Chamber installed (H-10 or H-20) (monolithic or 2 piece) ❑ Inlet tee installed, under access port ❑ Pump(s) installed on stable base ❑ Alarm float working ❑ Pump On/Off float working ❑ Drain hole in pressure line ❑ inch cover to within 6" of final grade installed over one access port ❑ Water tightness of tank has been achieved Visual or Vacuum Test or Water held for 24 hrs ❑ Hydraulic cement around inlet & outlet Comments: Page 2 of 4 r TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER:..., . Ave. /e.'•. pE Mp pTN 1 Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES HEALTH DEPARTMENT - _ 400 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 S'�CHUSE Susan Y. Sawyer. REHSIRS 978.688.9540 — Phone Public Health Director 978.688.9542 — FAX D -BOX ❑ Installed on stable stone base ❑ Inlet tee (if pumped or >0.08'/foot) ❑ Hydraulic cement around inlet & outlets ❑ Observed even distribution ❑ Comments: Speed levelers provided (not required) SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTE Bottom of SAS excavated down to Csoil layer, as provided on plan Size of SAS excavated as per plan Title 5 sand installed, if specified on plan ❑ 3/4-1 Y2" double washed stone installed ❑ 1/8-1/2" (peastone) double washed stone installed ❑ laterals installed and ends connected to header (and vented if impervious material above) ❑ Orifices @ 5 & 7 o'clock positions ❑ Gravelless disposal systems: type, number and location as per plan ❑ Elevations of laterals installed as on approved plan ❑ 40 Mil HDPE barrier installed ❑ Retaining wall (boulder / concrete / timber/ block) Comments: 11Final cover as per plan PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION El 11 Comments: inch manifold laterals installed with end sweeps size: material: Squirt test ft in height Equal distribution to all laterals orifice size inch as per plan Page 3 of 4 . ���•-may TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Ot NORTH Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES p HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS 01845 ''s' � SACHU`3 Susan Y. Sawyer, RENS/RS 978.688.9540 — Phone Public Health Director 978.688.8476 — FAX SYSTEM ELEVATIONS 1. Benchmark: 2. Rod at Benchmark: 3. Height of Instrument: INVERT ON DESIGN INVERT PLAN ELEVATION Building Sewer OUT Septic Tank IN Septic Tank OUT Distribution Box IN D -Box OUT Manifold Lateral 1 HIGH Lateral 1 Inv Lateral 2 HIGH Lateral 2 LOW Lateral 3 HIGH Lateral 3 LOW Page 4 of 4 b A ! I JL / 75.06' - A .71 r.aw 197 F W. W-197.0 �J ..—..., B. 0. W-196.7 Z' ,196.3 13 7 / In; / x 19&7 j TP -125 �� /� �1 DETEN77ON AREA �Cp / ,%/ ;%off LO TI 2 , 11+ 2 I 1 D BOX #101 4 / T.O.F.= 202.58 - 0 0� -a, DRIVEWAY _--S NOT ( PAVED 1 TABLE OF TIES TABLE OF INVERTS A B D—BOX TRENCH 1 27.4 44.1 198.16 197.77 2 42.9 51.7 197.48 3 74.4 61.8 RECEIVED DEC 0 6 2005 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER NOTES: HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1. THIS PLAN SHOWS THE CHANGES TO THE EXISTING DISPOSAL,-(tk OF M,4SS9c/i SYSTEM. FOR LOCATION OF EXISTING COMPONENTS SEE AS -BUILT PLAN ? DOUGLAS PREPARED BY MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES IN NOVEMBER OF LEES 2000. 0 CIVIL Ido. 40930 2. THIS PLAN & CERTIFICATION IS NOT A WARRANTY OF THE SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. IT IS A RECORD OF THE LOCATION10N AND ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM COMPONENTS. ' GRAPHIC SCALE 3. EXISTING WATER/GAS/ELECTRIC AND DRAINAGE AS SHOWN ON 0 10 20 40 RECORD PLANS BY OTHERS AND WERE NOT LOCATED BY THIS OFFICE. 1 INCH = 20 IT AS—BUILT SEPTIC SYSTEM W/LL/S & RUSINAPREPARED �HENDLEY OWNER OF RECORD: WILLIS & RUBINA HENDLEY —Tl — 1T 105 ROLLING RIDGE 101 CRICKET LANEPREPARED BY METHUEN, MA NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS Land Engineering & MAP 107A - LOT 286 Env%ronmenta/ Serv%CeS, LLC JOB# 0317 130 Middlesex Road, Tyngsboro, Massachusetts 01879 SCALE 1=20' NOVEMBER 30, 2005 SHEET 1 OF 1 Telephone (978) 649-4642 of D—BOX TRENCH 2 INVERT IN 198.16 197.77 INVERT OUT 197.99 197.48 RECEIVED DEC 0 6 2005 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER NOTES: HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1. THIS PLAN SHOWS THE CHANGES TO THE EXISTING DISPOSAL,-(tk OF M,4SS9c/i SYSTEM. FOR LOCATION OF EXISTING COMPONENTS SEE AS -BUILT PLAN ? DOUGLAS PREPARED BY MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES IN NOVEMBER OF LEES 2000. 0 CIVIL Ido. 40930 2. THIS PLAN & CERTIFICATION IS NOT A WARRANTY OF THE SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. IT IS A RECORD OF THE LOCATION10N AND ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM COMPONENTS. ' GRAPHIC SCALE 3. EXISTING WATER/GAS/ELECTRIC AND DRAINAGE AS SHOWN ON 0 10 20 40 RECORD PLANS BY OTHERS AND WERE NOT LOCATED BY THIS OFFICE. 1 INCH = 20 IT AS—BUILT SEPTIC SYSTEM W/LL/S & RUSINAPREPARED �HENDLEY OWNER OF RECORD: WILLIS & RUBINA HENDLEY —Tl — 1T 105 ROLLING RIDGE 101 CRICKET LANEPREPARED BY METHUEN, MA NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS Land Engineering & MAP 107A - LOT 286 Env%ronmenta/ Serv%CeS, LLC JOB# 0317 130 Middlesex Road, Tyngsboro, Massachusetts 01879 SCALE 1=20' NOVEMBER 30, 2005 SHEET 1 OF 1 Telephone (978) 649-4642 of Commonwealth of Massachusetts w W City/Town of No Andover a System Pumping Record w Form 4 M DEP has provided this form for use by local Boards of Health. Other forms may be used, but the information must be substantially the same as that provided here. Before using this form, check with your local Board of Health to determine the form they use. The System Pumping Record must be submitted to the local Board of Health or other approving authority within 14 days from the pumping date in accordance -with 310_CMR 1.5.351.. A. Facility Information Important: When filling out forms 1. System Location: on the computer, use only the tab key to move your Address cursor - do not No Andover use the return key. City/Town 2. System Owner: rearm Name Address (if different from location) Cityr town i /� rov 12 2013 1� n( T �WN OF Nl-;i-rH ANDOVER Ma State State Telephone Number Zip Code Zip Code B. Pumping Record /P 1. Date of Pumping 2. Quantity Pumped: Date Gallons 3. Type of system: ❑ Cesspool(s) Septic Tank ❑ Tight Tank ❑ Grease Trap ❑ Other (describe): 4. Effluent Tee Filter present? ❑ Yes ❑ No 5. Condition of System: 6. stem Pumped By: If yes, was it cleaned? ❑ Yes ❑ No Name Vehicle License Number Stewart's Septic Service Company 7. Location where contents were disposed: Stewart's Pre-treatment Plant, 20 So. Mill Bradford, Ma 01835 ignature of Ha Date Signature eceiving Facility Date y t5form4.doc• 03106 System Pumping Record • Page 1 of 1 IL Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHS System Pumping Record 0("T - 5 2010 y Form 4 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER DEP has provided this form for use by local Boards of Health. The r be submitted to the local Board of Health or other approving authority. Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. $0 A. Facility Information 1. System Location / Cn� Address ' An Citylrown 2. System Owner:� n I-e� ' Name Aaoress (if different from location) Cityrrown St'a a Zip Code State Zip Code Telephone Number B. Pumping Record 1. Date of Pumping Q 2. Quantity p Pum ed: Date Gallons 3. Type of system: ❑ Cesspool(s) yseptic Tank ❑ Tight Tank ❑ Other (describe): 4. Effluent Tee Filter present? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, was it cleaned? ❑ Yes ❑ No 5. Condition of System: %_ 6.S stem Pum By: Name Company ` 7. Vehicle License Number http://www.mass-gov/depANater/approvals/t5forms.htm#inspect t5fomr4.doc- 06103 V System Pumping Record • Page 1 of 1 r Town of North Andover \� Office of the Health Department Community Development and Services Division 400 OSGOOD STREET North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS Public Health Director 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax cwj-j9Wq7rCA2� o� coaWITLrAarCE As of: .May 1, 2006 This is to cert that the individuafsu6surface disposal system was Fully 1.epairecd 6y. Joseph R. (Ouddy) Watson At: 101 Cricket Lane North Andover, 9lA 01845 Yfas been installed in accordance with the provisions of Title V of the State Sanitary Code and with the North Andover Board ofWealth regulations. The Issuance of this certiftate shall not 6e construed as a guarantee that the system will function satisfactorily. Curt Bellavance Community Development Director BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNTNG 688-9535 04/28/2006 09:33 978688847G HEALTH PAGE 02103 C� TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER,.) ,p I� office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET No p,TH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 978.6$$.9540 -Phone Susan Y. Sawyer, REHSJRS 978,688.9476 - FAX Public Health Dir"tor E-MAIL: heglidgatAtownobandove .com 1W�B�1T�„�ttp•//www townofhorth' ndover com TOWN OF NORTH: ANDOVER SEPTIC DISPOSAL SYSTEM - INSTALLATION CERTINCATION The undersigned hereby certify that the Sewage Disposal System ( ) constructed; ( ) repaired; (Print located at /epJ (installation Address) was installed in conformance with the North Andover Board of Health approved plan, originally dated I 1/ 3 and last Revised on It &Z�q /03 , with a design flow of A/y' gallons per day. The materials used were in conformance with those specified on the approved plan; ft system was installed in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 15.000, Title 5 and local regulations, and the final grading agrees substantially with the approved plan. All work is accurately represented on the As -built which has been submitted, to the Board of Health. Red inspection date: Q Final inspection date: <;; � _, � /, - E406er Representative (Signature) C �wei t,A S Gt �.S And - Print Name Engineer Represen ve (Signawre) . C 7r And - Print Name Installer:. (Signatur+e) Date: ., � � ----r-- oS, �t And. Prin erne En in a22z'�;L(Signature) Date: ter-, 06 An nit N ' Land Engineering & Environmental Services, LLC CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS 130 MIDDLESEX ROAD, SUITE 15 TYNGSBORO, MA 01879 TELEPHONE (978) 649-4642 / FAX (978)649-0981 TO xll#?F7/ 1�2&00k fz �o �2 p f F 114 6771 [LGUTCM OF IMUSSRODUU0. DArg 7 p 3 ;?- ATTthTiOh me /U fav AFR 2 8 Z006 TOWN,-OvER WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via �=nitheTf:Clio% items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans O Samples ❑ Specifications O Copy of letter ❑ Change order O COPIES GATE No. DESCRIPTION '!-:lG Dlsanwc S' _W_57-i'94G/f-77a1V Q))7 CA7%w THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: O For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested O For review and comment O FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted O Returned for corrections ❑ ❑ Resubmit copies for approval O Submit copies for distribution O Return corrected prints 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO SIGNED: • Land Engineering Environmental Services, LLC CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND PLANNING RECEIVLO DEC 0 6 2005 HEALTH DE 130 Middlesex Road Tyngsboro, MA 01879 (978) 649-4642 /FAX (978) 649-0981 CERTIFICATION OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSTALLATION I, Douglas Lees, a Registered Engineer duly licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, License No. 40930, and working as an employee for Land Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC certify that we have performed the required inspections of the subsurface sewage disposal system at the referenced location in accordance with 310CMR15.021. To the best of my knowledge and belief all work shown on the accompanying As -Built Plan has been completed in general compliance with the original design plans as approved by the local Board of Health. Furthermore, the work as shown on the As -Built Plan appears to comply with the provisions of Title 5 of the Massachusetts Environmental Code (310CMR15.000) and all applicable local requirements. This certification shall not be construed as a guarantee that the disposal system will function as required. STREET ADDRESS: 101 Cricket Lane TOWN: North Andover, MA DATE: November 30, 2005 sH OF MASS DOUGLAS E, yc LEES R, N..-46,;30 46 O 'AL VA SIGNATURE: SEAL: Land Engineering & Environmental Services, LLC CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS 130 MIDDLESEX ROAD, SUITE 15 TYNGSBORO, MA 01879 TELEPHONE (978) 649-4642 / FAX (978)649-0981 TO A104M A)80t1M toLn4 6goKTVqe'yjr qD0 oasr000 smo - kOt�� WE ARE SENDING YOU O Attached O Under separate cover via O Shop drawings O Copy of letter D.« DATE •lT(NTION Lx Selo T1 C V N i of U pct --e- C.f-&je (1/3D OS r & - 8cryLr Svpm "I' y the following items: O Prints O Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications O Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION <, (1/3D OS r & - 8cryLr Svpm "I' y it 13 0-s � Sr�w� S �g2n�iCgnojU RECEIV,� 1.9 pg o a, 9nnq TOWN OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: PFor approval O Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use O Approved as noted O Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints O For review and comment ❑ O FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS 4Y' Q()CLS17Z01� 6 -WC- UJ QA(K COPY TO n LLQ f . SIGNED: aiGUatA.. fJYZcCb Town of North Andover Office of the Conservation Department Community Development and Services Division Health Department 27 Charles Street North Andover. Mass—h--"q M OA M Sandra Starr Health Director MEMORANDUM TO: Mike McGuire, Building Inspector FROM: Brian J. LaGrasse, Health Inspector RE: 101 Cricket Lane DATE: August 8, 2002 Telephone (978) 688-9540 Fax(978)688-9542 I am sending you this memo in regards to the septic system located at the aforementioned address. The septic system does not .have a Certificate of Compliance and the property should not be given an occupancy permit at this time. Feel free to contact me at anytime if you have any questions or would like additional information. A Grasse Health Inspector cc: Sandra Starr, Health Director Board of Health File BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BiJILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:49 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Buddy Watson called. He is at 101 Cricket Lane. I scheduled a BOB, for the trench, at @ 1:00 today for Michele or myself. Susan Sawyer, R.S. Public Health Director office 978 688-9540 fax 978 688-8476 -01v4c- 37 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER `` Ot MORTa 1 Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 ��Ss" CHU Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS 978.688.9540 — Phone Public Health Director 978.688.8476 — FAX SEPTIC SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION NOTES LOCATION INFORMATION ADDRESS: 101 Cricket Lane MAP: LOT:_ INSTALLER: Buddy Watson DESIGNER: Norse Env. PLAN DATE: 12/16/03 BOH APPROVAL DATE ON PLAN: 11/24/03 INSPECTIONS DATE OF BED BOTTOM INSPECTION: 10/31/05 - Michele Grant DATE OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION: 1111L,5 --,5n0 DATE OF FINAL GRADE INSPECTION: SELECT SYSTEM TYPE 1. GRAVITY DISTRIBUTION... ❑ 2. PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION... ❑ 3. PRESSURE DOSING... ❑ 4. HOLDING TANK... ❑ 5. ADVANCED TREATMENT... ❑ 6. OTHER... COMPONENT SUMMARY FROM PLAN 1. GALLON TANK = 1000 2. LOADING OF SEPTIC TANK = 1500 3. GALLON PUMP CHAMBER = 4. LOADING OF PUMP CHAMBER = 5. TYPE OF SAS = 6. DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS OF SAS: Comments: Cut off at end of trench and add onto the other end of trench #2. Hole was 11 plus 5' over total length with 16.8. Page 1 of 4 u TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER of NoerN •4,,..• ,. do Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES o? • o� HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET ",- �s NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 �'ss4CHU c{`•' Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS Public Health Director SITE CONDITIONS 1. Existing septic tank properly abandoned... ❑ 2. Internal plumbing all to one building sewer... ❑ 3. Topography not appreciably altered... ❑ SEPTIC TANK 1. Bottom of tank hole has 6" stone base... ❑ 2. Weep hole plugged... ❑ 3. Tank has been installed (H-10 or H-20) Tank Size: 1,000;1,500; Other Monolithic or 2 piece (circle) ... ❑ 4. Water tightness of tank has been achieved (Visual) ... ❑ 5. Inlet tee installed, under access port... ❑ 978.688.9540 — Phone 978.688.8476 — FAX 6. Outlet tee (gas baffle or effluent filter) installed, under access port... ❑ 7. Cover to within 6" of final grade installed over one access port, must be over outlet of tank if effluent filter is present - Inches of Tank... ❑ 8. Hydraulic cement around inlet & outlet... ❑ Comments: PUMP CHAMBER 1. Bottom of tank hole has 6" stone base... ❑ 2. Weep hole plugged... ❑ 3. Pump Chamber Installed Gallons; (H-10 or H-20) (Monolithic or 2 piece) (circle) 4. Inlet tee installed, under access port... ❑ 5. Pump(s) installed on stable base ... ❑ 6. Alarm Float Working... ❑ 7. Pump On/Off Float Working... ❑ 8. Total # of Floats... 9. Drain hole in pressure line... ❑ 10. Cover to within 6" of final grade installed over one access port... ❑ 11. Water tightness of tank has been achieved — Visual or Vacuum Test or Water held for 24 hours (circle) 12. Hydraulic cement around inlet & outlet... ❑ Comments: Page 2 of 4 J TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Ot MOR71� .Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES p ae O HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS Ol 845 Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS 978.688.9540 — Phone Public Health Director 978.688.8476 — FAX D -BOX 1. Installed on stable stone base... ❑ 2. Inlet tee (if pumped or >0.08'/foot)... ❑ 3. Hydraulic cement around inlet & outlets... ❑ 4. Observed even distribution... ❑ 5. Speed levelers provided (not required) ... ❑ Comments: SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM 1. Bottom of SAS excavated down to C Soil Layer, as provided on plan... ❑x 2. Size of SAS excavated as per plan... E * 3. Title 5 sand installed, if specified on plan... ❑x 4. 3/4-1 /2" double washed stone installed... ❑ 5. 1/8-1/2" (pea stone) double washed stone installed... ❑ 6. Laterals installed and ends connected to header (and vented if impervious material above) ... ❑ 7. Orifices @ 5 & 7 o'clock positions... ❑ 8. Gravel -less disposal systems: type, number and location as per plan... ❑ 9. Elevations of laterals installed as on approved plan... ❑ 10. 40 Mil HDPE barriers installed... ❑ 11. Retaining wall (boulder / concrete / timber / block) ... ❑ 12. Final cover as per plan ... ❑ Comments: PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION 1. # of Inches in Manifold 2. Laterals installed with end sweeps; Size: Material: 3. Squirt Test: Feet in height 4. Equal distribution to all laterals 5. Orifice size inch as per plan Comments: CONTROL PANEL 1. Alarm & Pump are on separate circuits... ❑ 2. Alarm sounds when float is tripped... ❑ 3. Location of control panel: 4. Rated for exterior if placed outside... ❑ Comments: Page 3 of 4 Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS Public Health Director SYSTEM ELEVATIONS 1. Benchmark: 2. Rod at Benchmark: 3. Height of Instrument: 978.688.9540 — Phone 978.688.8476 — FAX INVERT ON DESIGN INVERT PLAN ELEVATION Building Sewer OUT Septic Tank IN Septic Tank OUT Distribution Box IN D -Box OUT Manifold Lateral 1 HIGH Lateral 1 Inv Lateral 2 HIGH Lateral 2 LOW Lateral 3 HIGH Lateral 3 LOW Page 4 of 4 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER �� NORTh Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES t HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET " " "" NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 ��ss'„C U <� Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS Public Health Director SYSTEM ELEVATIONS 1. Benchmark: 2. Rod at Benchmark: 3. Height of Instrument: 978.688.9540 — Phone 978.688.8476 — FAX INVERT ON DESIGN INVERT PLAN ELEVATION Building Sewer OUT Septic Tank IN Septic Tank OUT Distribution Box IN D -Box OUT Manifold Lateral 1 HIGH Lateral 1 Inv Lateral 2 HIGH Lateral 2 LOW Lateral 3 HIGH Lateral 3 LOW Page 4 of 4 C Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 Re: 101 Cricket Lane Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hendley, Town of North Andover BUILDING DEPARTMENT U June 9, 2006 Our records indicate that your property may need a final inspection. Please be advised that in order to permit occupancy for the property at 101 Cricket Lane a final inspection by the Building Department is in order. Please call the office to set up an appointment for the final inspection. A Certificate of Occupancy can be issued once the final inspection is documented. Thank you for your attention in this matter Sincerely, Gerald A. Brown, Inspector of Buildings Cc: Curt Bellavance, Director CD&S Corninunity Deve 0opnient Division, 16000900d Street, North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Phone 978.688.9545 Frix 978.688.9542 Web www.toWnofnorthandover.com C Application for Septic Disposal System • o?o.� +.o t �yooe. =Construction Permit -TOWN OF Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. _Q AWA -0 • �� Application is hereby made for a permit to: ❑ Construct a new on-site sewage disposal system* ❑ Repair or replace an existing on-site sewage disposal system* 0-kepair or replace an existing system component A. Facility Info matioj�nQTL /„ �Cr L LQ Address or Lot # Cityrrown 2.- *TYPE OF,SEPTIC SYSTEM*: ❑ Pump [f Gravity (choose one) ***If pump system, attach copy of electrical permit to application*** Conventional System (pipe and stone system) Tic-a� 11,19le9� TODAY'S DATE $ 250.00 — Full Repair $125.00 - Component ❑ Infiltrator or Biodiffuser (Gravel -Less) (Attach a copy of your certification to install this type of system. ❑ Pressure Distribution S.A.S. (No D -Box) (Attach Draft Maintenance Agreement) ❑ Pressure Dosed (D -Box Present) S.A.S. 2. Owner Information �Ityr I VW1I State Zip Code Telephone Number 3. Installer Information Name Name of Company 74 Address Cit State Zip Code Telephone Number (Cell Phone # if possible please) 4. Designer Information Name Name of Company Address City/Town State Zip Code Telephone Number (Best # to Reach) Application for Disposal System Construction Permit • Page 1 of 2 T Application for Septic Disposal System r pORM �? Construction Permit -TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845 PAGE 2OF2 A. Facility Information continued.... 5. Type of Build inwAfResidential Dwelling or ❑Commercial B. Agreement 0604-a4 I4—/'9 - TODAY'S DATE $ 250.00 - Full Repair $125.00 - Component The undersigned agrees to ensure the construction and maintenance of the afore -described on-site sewage disposal system in accordance with the provisions of Title 5 of the Environmental Code, as well as the Local Subsurface Disposal Regulations for the Town of North Andover, and not to place the system in operation until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by this Board of Health. Names Date Applicaf Approved By: oard of Health Representative) N e Date Application Disapproved for the following reasons: For Office Use Only: t) j Il� L Fee Attached. Yes No / p 2. Project Manager Obligation Form Attached? Yes No U' I Pump System? If so, Attach copy ofElectrical Permit Yes No 4. Foundation As -Built? (new construction ronly): Yes No (Same scale as approved plan) .5 Floor Plans? (new construction only): Yes No Application for Disposal System Construction Permit • Page 2 of 2 OCT 20,2005 12:40 J W WATSr", JR. INC. 978-475-0413 "� page 2 10/19/2005 14:53 9786988476 HFALTH PAGE 02/02 �J E%WALLER PROJECT MANAGEMENT OBLIGATIONS As the North Andover licensed. installer for the construction of the septic system for the property at J rrelative to the application of ���i dated �ciforplaysby__, Fri. and dated with revisions dated_ T understand the following obligations for management of this project_ 1. As the installer I am obligated to obtain all permits and Board of Health approved plans prior to performing any work on a site. I must have the approved plans and the permit on site when any work is being done. 2. As the installer I must call for any and all inspections. If homcowner, contractor, proiect manger, or any other person not associated with my company schedules an inspection and the system is not ready there item three shall be applicable. 3. As the installer I am required to have the necessary work completed. prior to the applicable inspections as indicated below. I understand that requesting an inspection, without completion of the items in accordance with Tile 5 and the Board of Health Regulations may result in a $50.00 fine being levied against my company. a) Bottom of Bed - generally first inspection wiless dtarc is a retaining wall which should he done first. Installer must mquLmt the inspection but does not have to be present, b) Final inspection — Engineer must first do their inspection for elevations, ties, etc. As -built or verbal. OK from enSineer must be submitted to Board of Health, atter which installer calls for inspection, time. Tnstatler must be present for this inspection. With pump system all electrical work must be ready and able to Cause pump to work and alarm to function. 0) Final Grade — installer mutat request inspection when all grading is complete. Does not have to be on site. 4. As the installer T understand that only I may perform the work (other than simple excavation) required to complete the installation of the system identified in the attached application for inwtalladon. T further understand that work by others unlitensed to install septic systems in North Andover can constitute reasons for denial of the system, and/or, revocation or suspension of my license to operate in the Town of North Andover; significant fines to all persons involved are also possible. 5. As the Installer I understand that I must be on site during the performance of the following constRiction Steps: a) Determination that the proper elevation of the excavation has been rearhad, b) Mspection of the sand and stone to he used. c) Final inspection by $(wd of -Health statfor consultant. d) Installation of tank, D -box, pipes, stone, vent, pump chamber, retaining wall and other components, 6. As the installer I understand that i am solely responsible for the installation of the system as per the approved plans. No instructions by the homeowner, general contractor,. or any other persons shall absolve me of this obligation. Undcrs geed Licensed Septic Installer 4i ' t taste:Z--,;&- L L Curran, Bernadette From:--Rubirra Hendley [rubinahendley@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 4:04 AM To: cdoherty@andoverliving.com Cc: Santilli, Ray; Daley, Lincoln; Hmurciak, Bill; Curran, Bernadette Subject: [BULK] 120 Cricket Ln, NA Importance: Low Dear Mr Doherty, As displayed above, I have copied this communication to various departments at the Town of North Andover, for reasons that will become evident below. I am co-owner, with my husband Willis, of 101 Cricket Ln, which is the pale grey house diagonally across from #120. Our home, as well as #120, is part of the Walnut Ridge subdivision. I wish to make you aware of a potentially serious problem at #120 that appears to have put a cloud on the title to that property, of which I believe you (or the homeowners) may not be aware. It is similar to a problem that occurred at our property, that affected not just us, but also the homeowner adjacent to us at #115, and cost both sets of homeowners (via our respective RE attorneys) considerable expense and inconvenience to correct. The primary culprits (sadly, there is no better way to describe them) involved in this mess that we faced include the Town of North Andover, the developer(s) of the subdivision, and the land engineers for the subdivision. I have decided to bring the situation to your attention as a result of a series of events over a period of five years that recently culminated in a prospective buyer directly asking me if I was aware of "any problem" with # 120. I answered in the affirmative, and whether or not you have a personal or business relationship with any of the public or private entities involved, you and the homeowners, to whom you owe a fiduciary duty, need to know. The situation at #120 has remained both unaddressed, uncorrected, AND concealed for long enough, despite the fact we have alerted officials within the town on numerous occasions both verbally and in writing. Ours were not mere unsupported allegations; they were backed up with full support from documents from the public record for this subdivision, as well as relevant state/local regulations, and confirmed to us by numerous respected RE attorneys, including that for the homeowner who recently contacted me; as well as by other land engineers. Recently, we had two prospective buyers contact us (by initially knocking on our door) regarding properties that are currently for sale in the newer end of our street. Both buyers asked if we would be willing to talk to them about the neighborhood, and we let them know we would be glad to let them have our impressions. One of these buyers was interested in #93 (adjacent to our house), and spoke with my husband; the second in #120, who spoke with me. This latter buyer informed me he had "heard" we had had "problems" that the town had made us correct, at which point I informed him I was only willing to talk to him if he allowed me to place the whole trauma we endured into context, and not based on any gossip, nor piecemeal information he had received. He indicated he was willing to do this because, as he informed me, he wondered why there were three properties (#93, #120, and #144) all remaining unsold for many months in our street, that he did not believe was just due to a depressed market. I informed him that although there were homeowners with potential serious uncorrected problems in the subdivision, our investigations had revealed that #93 and # 144 did not appear to be affected, but that #120 was. n I also detailed how unconscionable events within the town (documented incompetence, documented negligence, and our direct exposure to serious ethical misconduct) prevented us from occupying our property for five years, during which we also discovered the town's failure to act upon potentially serious deviations from approved plans/regulations adversely affected other homeowners in this subdivision, of which the developer(s) and various licensed contractors, including the land engineers, are also aware. To cut a long story short, this is the source of the problem that we believe still exists at #120: it involves the septic system grading easement appurtenant to # 110 that is located on # 120. Reasons for the problem: 1. This septic easement is deeded for use by #110 in connection with the installation, repair, and maintenance of the septic system located on #110, and associated grading and re -grading, which may involve the addition and/or movement of soil; 2. A large portion of this septic easement falls right over the existing driveway for # 120; 3. Since #110 is at a considerably higher elevation than #120, use of the septic easement as deeded could result in a significant section of the driveway for #120 being submerged/altered, thus making the current access to the garage(s) restricted, or inaccessible; 4. The septic easement for #110, as well as for other properties in Walnut Ridge, were recorded at Northern Essex Registry of Deeds, Plan #13636; this plan being a bare -bones one depicting lot lines and easement locations only, and conveniently excluded actual structures (such as houses, driveways) on any of the lots; 5. It was mandatory for these septic easements to be disclosed and depicted on the Definitive Plan (and other required plans) submitted for evaluation at the pre -approval stage for this subdivision ---for obvious reasons that I will not labor to explain; 6. 5 above was never done by the developer(s), nor their land engineers; 7. Various town depts were aware of the existence of these septic easements, but none questioned why they did not appear on the Definitive Plan; 8. Construction then proceeded at all lots; 9. Numerous septic easements became compromised as a result of ostensibly permanent structures being located on them; 10. Numerous other significant deviations from the so-called approved plans occurred, such as those involving elevations and locations of structures; 11. Numerous significant deviations from accepted land (and septic) engineering practice also occurred; 12. The land engineers, and other licensed contractors, had a professional responsibility to inform/alert various town officials of significant deviations, but there is no public record for many (if not most) of the significant deviations that occurred (however, we directly learnt that one significant deviation reported to a senior official at the town was concealed by this official); 13. Town officials had a responsibility to ensure the developer(s) and other licensed parties followed approved plans (even though the so-called approved plans were fundamentally flawed by the omission of the septic easements), but instead allowed various significant deviations to remain unaddressed and uncorrected; 14. Town officials were supposed to remain impartial and objective, but we have personal experience and evidence of bias and favoritism towards the developer(s) in particular; 15. We have informed countless officials at the town specifically with regard to the non -disclosure of these easements, and of their being compromised thereafter, but have never received any acknowledgment of any kind to our concerns; these officials included Ms Rosemary Smedile, the Town Manager's office, the former Director of Community Development, various former Directors of Planning, the former Chairman of the Planning Board, the former Building Inspectors, DPW, Health, and Conservation. e" b' This communication to you has been at great personal expense to me, since I, more so than my husband, have suffered considerable retaliation at town level. This will, no doubt, continue to be the case, but I remain undaunted. In conclusion, I am glad to report there have been some personnel changes for the better within the town. If you care to follow up the situation at # 120, I recommend speaking to the new head of the Building dept, Mr Brown, whom I have found to be professional, and considerate. Sincerely, Rubina Hendley Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ,,. Page I of 2 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:41 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: FW: Walnut Ridge subdivision fyi -----Original Message ----- From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:32 AM To: Curran, Bernadette Subject: RE: Walnut Ridge subdivision B, I suggest before you do anything with this, that you forward it to Ray. He was designated the point person for all communications regarding 101 Cricket Lane. Susan 4/24/2008 -----Original Message ----- From: Curran, Bernadette Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:52 PM To: Sawyer, Susan Subject: Walnut Ridge subdivision Importance: Low Hi Susan; Yes, Rubina is back...... If you get a moment, could you look over the below -e-mail and let me know the best answer I could provide to her. All the happenings at this address happened long before I came into the picture at ComDev. Not sure if the best advise I can give her is for her to come in and view the files herself, or if perhaps I should not encourage her to come anywhere near the office??? not sure.... Please advise... Thanks.. Bernadette -----Original Message ----- From: Rubina Hendley [mailto:rubinahendley@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:40 PM To: Curran, Bernadette Subject: [SPAM] Walnut Ridge subdivision Importance: Low Dear Mr Curran: I am the co-owner of 101 Cricket Lane in the above subdivision. Page 2 of 2 I would appreciate receiving the following information described below with respect to the above subdivision, which I requested on numerous occasions, both in person and in writing, to your predecessor, who declined for reasons never explained to provide to me. Please note, there are deeded septic grading easements for nine of the ten new - construction properties, appurtenant to each and located on the adjacent property, Plan #13636, recorded on Dec 16, 1999. I also have a copy of the subdivision's Definitive Plan #13447, recorded on April 18, 1999, and this plan does not reference any of the septic easements presumably because, according to the date mentioned above, said easements had not been devised, or disclosed. I double-checked at the Lawrence registry of deeds for an update to the Definitive plan that depicts these easements, but had no luck finding one. I assume a Definitive plan exists depicting these easements, and I would appreciate any relevant information so that I can get a copy from the registry. I would also like to be directed to which public files for the subdivision (planning, board of health, building, etc) have the information regarding the submission and approval processes for these easements. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Rubina Hendley Ahhh ... imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. 4/24/2008 Page 1 of 2 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:41 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: FW: Walnut Ridge subdivision fyi -----Original Message ----- From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:32 AM To: Curran, Bernadette Subject: RE: Walnut Ridge subdivision B, I suggest before you do anything with this, that you forward it to Ray. He was designated the point person for all communications regarding 101 Cricket Lane. Susan -----Original Message ----- From: Curran, Bernadette Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:52 PM To: Sawyer, Susan Subject: Walnut Ridge subdivision Importance: Low Hi Susan; Yes, Rubina is back...... If you get a moment, could you look over the below e-mail and let me know the best answer I could provide to her. All the happenings at this address happened long before I came into the picture at COmDev. Not sure if the best advise I can give her is for her to come in and view the files herself, or if perhaps I should not encourage her to come anywhere near the office??? not sure.... Please advise... Thanks.. Bernadette -----Original Message ----- From: Rubina Hendley [mai Ito: rubi na hendley@ya hoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:40 PM To: Curran, Bernadette Subject: [SPAM] Walnut Ridge subdivision Importance: Low Dear Mr Curran: I am the co-owner of 101 Cricket Lane in the above subdivision. I would appreciate receiving the following information described below with respect to the above subdivision, which I requested on numerous occasions, both in person and in writing, to your predecessor, who declined for reasons never explained to 5/11/2007 Page 2 of 2 � vR- provide to me. Please note, there are deeded septic grading easements for nine of the ten new - construction properties, appurtenant to each and located on the adjacent property, Plan #13636, recorded on Dec 16, 1999. I also have a copy of the subdivision's Definitive Plan #13447, recorded on April 18, 1999, and this plan does not reference any of the septic easements presumably because, according to the date mentioned above, said easements had not been devised, or disclosed. I double-checked at the Lawrence registry of deeds for an update to the Definitive plan that depicts these easements, but had no luck finding one. I assume a Definitive plan exists depicting these easements, and I would appreciate any relevant information so that I can get a copy from the registry. I would also like to be directed to which public files for the subdivision (planning, board of health, building, etc) have the information regarding the submission and approval processes for these easements. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Rubina Hendley Ahhh... imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. 5/11/2007 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:40 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: RE: a goal I forgot about In late June I have to update my online goals. -----Original Message ----- From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:28 AM To: Sawyer, Susan Subject: RE: a goal I forgot about Importance: High Okay - When is your due date for this goal (to turn something in)? -----Original Message ----- From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:33 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: FW: a goal I forgot about Importance: High Please don't let me forget this. Can we schedule some time to figure out what would help best when you are not around? thx. S -----Original Message ----- From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:14 PM To: Sawyer, Susan Subject: RE: a goal I forgot about Importance: High I have a booklet of position duties, and what is done, but I do not have a "how to" guide book. Do you want the booklet in the meantime (done on 6/14/04)? -----Original Message ----- From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:05 PM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: a goal I forgot about The Health Director will work with the Administrative Assistant to produce a sample book of misc. administrative duties that could arise at times the Administrative Assistant is ill or on vacation for extended periods of time. Any thoughts on this? Susan Current status, I put, in progress 4 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:40 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: RE: a goal I forgot about In late June I have to update my online goals. -----Original Message ----- From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:28 AM To: Sawyer, Susan Subject: RE: a goal I forgot about Importance: High Okay - When is your due date for this goal (to turn something in)? -----Original Message ----- From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:33 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: FW: a goal I forgot about Importance: High Please don't let me forget this. Can we schedule some time to figure out what would help best when you are not around? thx. S -----Original Message ----- From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:14 PM To: Sawyer, Susan Subject: RE: a goal I forgot about Importance: High I have a booklet of position duties, and what is done, but I do not have a "how to" guide book. Do you want the booklet in the meantime (done on 6/14/04)? -----Original Message ----- From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:05 PM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: a goal I forgot about The Health Director will work with the Administrative Assistant to produce a sample book of misc. administrative duties that could arise at times the Administrative Assistant is ill or on vacation for extended periods of time. Any thoughts on this? Susan Current status, I put, in progress of North Ando a Health D IM__ en Town of North Andover 1600 Osgood Street Building 20; Suite 2-36 North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone Web Site - www.townofnorthandover. com E -Mail - hea Ithdept(cDtownofnorthandover. com 978.688.8476 - Fax Due upon receipt Invoice No. 9/5/2006 Bill To Lynch, Brewer, Hoffman & Fink Address Attn: Rebecca Ellis 101 Federal Street, 22nd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone 617.951.0800 Fax E -Mail Deposit Received $0.00 Invoice Subtotal $51.00 Tax Rate Invoice Total $51.00 Total Amount Due $51.00 Amount Paid ,9/5/2006 {Complete File Copy of 101 Cricket Lane -t _ $51.00 ' I - _ 4 - ,Received Received by: I Signature:—— Print Name:- _ t I I 1 Subtotal $51.00 - - - - - - - Tax $0.00 Total. $51{0 Thanks for letting us serve you! f� � .r of North Ando er Health a artm - Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone Web Site - www.townofnortha ndover.com E -Mail - healthdeot(&townofnorthand over. com 978.688.8476 - Fax Due upon receipt Invoice No. 1/20/2006 Bill To PIERCE, DAVIS & PERRITANO Address Attn: John Davis 10 Winthrop Square Boston MA 02110 Phone 617.350.0950 Fax E -Mail Deposit Received $0.00 Invoice Subtotal $51.00 Tax Rate Invoice Total $51.00 Total Amount Due $51.00 Amount Paid 1/20/2006 - Complete File Copy of 101 Cricket Lane - - - - - + - _ - _ - - -----+-- - - - $51.00 _.. -- - -- - - } - - -- _ - -- - ----- t ---- - -- - 14 Received by_-- Signature: _.- Print Name: - - - t ---- -- _ - y _Subtotal $51.00 —_-� Tax, $0.00 - - - - - - - - Total_ _ ..- $51.00 Thanks for letting us serve you! of North Andover Health Department Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone Web Site - www.townofnorthandover. com E -Mail - hea Ithdept(cDtownofnortha ndover. com 978.688.8476 - Fax Due upon receipt Invoice No. 12/9/2005 Bill To Albert P. Manzi, III Address Attorney At Law 24 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Phone 978-681-6618 Fax 978-681-6628 E -Mail AttyManzi@Manzilaw.net Deposit Received $0.00 Invoice Subtotal $51.00 Tax Rate Invoice Total $51.00 Total Amount Due $51.00 Amount Paid 12/9/2005 _ _ Complete File Copy of 101 Cricket Lane r— - -- - by: -- — - { -- ,Received Signature: __ -- - — I - --- Print Name: ' -4 I , Subtotal $51.00 Tax t $0.00 - -- - - -- - - — - __Total - - - $51.00 Thanks for letting us serve you! ._1 RECEIVED �4J PIERCE, DAVIS & PERRITANO, LLP COUNSELLORS AT LAW Joel F. Pierce John J. Davis * Judith A. Perritano John J. Cloherty III Daniel G. Skrip Of counsel: Gerald Fabiano Jeffrey M. Sankey Ms. Sandra Starr 22 West Street Georgetown, MA 01833 TEN WINTHROP SQUARE BOSTON, MA 02110-1257 TELEPHONE (617) 350-0950 FACSIMILE (617) 350-7760 July 17, 2006 Re: Willis Hendley, et al. v. William Sawyer, et al. Essex Super. Ct., C.A. No. 05-01540 Our File No.: 164-0403748 Dear Ms. Starr: JUL 18 2006 TOWN OF N`)R'!FH .ANDOVER Kip J. Adams- - --- Patrick D. Banfield Mia Baron John R. Felice David C. Hunter t Michael D. Leedberg • Robert S. Ludlum to Julia C. Martinescu * Terrence D. Pricher David G. Schwartz Adam Simms t *also admitted in R1 "a als "mitted in PA also a mitted in NY also a mined in CT ti N As I mentioned today, please find enclosed a copy of the Clerk's Notice which confirms that the Superior Court (Kottmyer, J.) has granted our motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint against you. The Clerk's Notice allows for an amended complaint to be filed by July 30, 2006, provided that it "details with specificity the contents of any misrepresentation(s) made by [you], the date(s) of such misrepresentations were made, etc...." Considering that you told me that you never met with or spoke to the Hendleys prior to the closing on 101 Crickett Lane, it seems unlikely that the Hendleys can in good faith comply with the Court's Order concerning their filing of an Amended Complaint. Nonetheless, we will contact you promptly if and when we receive an Amended Complaint which names you as a defendant. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, PIERCE, DAVIs & PERRITANO, LLP Adam Simms AS/mm Enclosure cc: Ms. Susan Sawyer Daniel S. Morrison, Esq. r r('�Jmonwealth of Massachusef County of Essex The Superior Court RE: Hendley et al v Sawyer et al TO: John J Davis, Esquire Pierce Davis & Perritano 10 Winthrop Square 5th Floor Boston, MA -02110-1264 CLERK'S NOTICE Civil Docket RECEIVED JUL 18 2006 This is to notify you that in the above referenced case the Court's action on 06/30/2006: RE: Defendant Sandra Starr's MOTION to Dismiss w/supporting memorandum is as follows: MOTION (P#41) the motion to dismiss on statue of limitations grounds is ALLOWED, provided that leave is given to plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this order that details with specificity the contents of any misrepresentation(s) made by Starr, the dates of such misrepresentation(s) were made and the facts alleged to constitute reliance on the misrepresentation(s). A responsive pleading will be due 10 days after any amended complaint is filed. (Diane M. Kottmyer, Justice). Notices mailed 7/3/2006 Dated at Lawrence, Massachusetts this 30th day of June, 2006. Telephone: (978) 687-7463 Copies mailed 07/03/2006 cvdresu1t_2.wpd 633033 mottext sullkell ANDOVER '-MENT Thomas H. Driscoll Jr., Clerk of the Courts Philip Massa Assistant Clerk DelleChiaie, Pamela From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:54 AM To: Bellavance, Curt Cc: Sawyer, Susan Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Importance: High Hello Curt, Susan asked me to let you know that Mark Rees sent over a revised Disclosure form which indicated the following comments: "Susan Sawyer, her staff or contractors employed by the Town of North Andover shall not conduct any inspections at 101 Cricket Lane. Community Development Director will arrange for another Town's inspector to conduct all future inspections at this site." Upon review of the file, the status is that this property location needs the following work done to be considered as having a completed, acceptable septic system in the Town of North Andover (these are standards that all septic systems in Town must comply with): 1. A Final Grade Inspection needs to be completed - this includes checking that the site complies with the Final As Built plan, as well as being Loamed and Seeded and covered according to the approved plan. This inspection needs to be requested by Joseph R. (Buddy) Watson, the septic installer hired by Mr. & Mrs. Hendley. If he needs to be contacted for any reason, he can be reached at: 978.475.3262; Address: 43 Lowell Junction Road, Andover, MA 01810. 2. An Installation Certification Form needs to be submitted to the Health Department by the engineer completed and signed by both the engineer and the installer certifying proper installation of the system. 3. A Final "As Built" plan needs to be submitted by the engineer. Note: A Certificate of Compliance will not be issued by the Health Department until these items have been submitted and completed. Please note that the Health Department has an additional full copy of this file if you wish to review it at any time. Please let u's know if you need any further information or assistance on this application. 8esf RagAads, .010/4¢04 D¢B0-0e,91410 Health Department Assistant Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax http://www.townofnorthandover.c6m healthdept@townofnorthandover.com DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:10 PM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: RE: 101 Cricket Lane I think you have the final as -built in the file. Don't know about the cert. form thx -----Original Message ----- From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:54 AM To: Bellavance, Curt Cc: Sawyer, Susan Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Importance: High Hello Curt, Susan asked me to let you know that Mark Rees sent over a revised Disclosure form which indicated the following comments: "Susan Sawyer, her staff or contractors employed by the Town of North Andover shall not conduct any inspections at 101 Cricket Lane. Community Development Director will arrange for another Town's inspector to conduct all future inspections at this site." Upon review of the file, the status is that this property location needs the following work done to be considered as having a completed, acceptable septic system in the Town of North Andover (these are standards that all septic systems in Town must comply with): 1. A Final Grade Inspection needs to be completed - this includes checking that the site complies with the Final As Built plan, as well as being Loamed and Seeded and covered according to the approved plan. This inspection needs to be requested by Joseph R. (Buddy) Watson, the septic installer hired by Mr. & Mrs. Hendley. If he needs to be contacted for any reason, he can be reached at: 978.475.3262; Address: 43 Lowell Junction Road, Andover, MA 01810. 2. An Installation Certification Form needs to be submitted to the Health Department by the engineer completed and signed by both the engineer and the installer certifying proper installation of the system. 3. A Final "As Built" plan needs to be submitted by the engineer. Note: A Certificate of Compliance will not be issued by the Health Department until these items have been submitted and completed. Please note that the Health Department has an additional full copy of this file if you wish to review it at any time. Please let us know if you need any further information or assistance on this application. 8esf R, Op, Pa�ryaBw DaBBaG�lffafe Health Department Assistant Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA o1845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax http://www.townofnorthandover.com healthdept@townofnorthandover.com 0 oaf �. MRUR RRVeir consulting Your complete source for on-site wastewater management November 7, 2005 Owe RECEIVED NOV - 9 2005 Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVERHEALTH DEPARTMENT Health Director North Andover Health Department 400 Osgood Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 RE: Septic System Repair Inspection, 101 Cricket Lane, Map 107A, Lot 286 Dear Ms. Sawyer, Mill River Consulting performed a final construction inspection for the repair to the soil absorption system at 101 Cricket Lane on November 1, 2005. Construction was performed by Joseph R. (Buddy) Watson. The plan date was 11/24/2003, and the BOH approval date on the plan was 12/16/2003. During our inspection, we verified that the length of the trench addition was per plan, that appropriate stone was used in the trench, and that the pipe elevations of the addition provide proper fall from the existing distribution box to the tie-in to the existing leaching line. The following elevations were recorded at the site: Distribution box outlet 198.01 (Used as base elevation) Start of lateral 197.79 End of Addition 197.71 End of Lateral 197.47 Please feel free to contact me should any questions arise. Sincerely, 4J, K/at' Andrew McBrearty Project Manager 2 Blackburn Center, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-2259 1-800-377-3044 or 978-282-0014 0 Fax 978-282-0012 info@millriverconsulting.com 0 www.millriverconsulting.com ,7�vG'-ya November 7, 2005 Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS Health Director North Andover Health Department 400 Osgood Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 RE: Septic System Repair Inspection, 101 Cricket Lane, Map 107A, Lot 286 Dear Ms. Sawyer, Mill River Consulting performed a final construction inspection for the repair to the soil absorption system at 101 Cricket Lane on November 1, 2005. Construction was performed by Joseph R. (Buddy) Watson. The plan date was 11/24/2003, and the BOH approval date on the plan was 12/16/2003. During our inspection, we verified that the length of the trench addition was per plan, that appropriate stone was used in the trench, and that the pipe elevations of the addition provide proper fall from the existing distribution box to the tie-in to the existing leaching line. The following elevations were recorded at the site: Distribution box outlet 198.01 (Used as base elevation) Start of lateral 197.79 End of Addition 197.71 End of Lateral 197.47 Please feel free to contact me should any questions arise. Sincerely, Andrew McBrearty Project Manager DelleChiaie, Pamela �1 Jw- From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 2:39 PM To: 'Daniel Ottenheimer (E-mail)'; 'Lisa LeVasseur (E-mail)'; 'McBrearty Andrew (E-mail)' Subject: 101 Cricket Lane - Final Inspection Can you do this one also when you are here for Foster Street? Thank you. Buddy Watson is the installer: 508.932.3204 80gf RagAodS, Pa�yaG�w D¢B�¢L�lfiwia Health Department Assistant Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA o1845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax http://www.townofnorthandover.com healthdept@townofnorthandover.com (- I C), ,7J�v�--38' DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 12:29 PM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Andy and Dan will be at the Cape as well. So in case of an upset person, here are a couple of thoughts. 1) If a tank bottom is being requested. Suggest they take a picture and send it in for the file or they can back fill all but one side so that we may see the stone base at the next inspection. 2) You can check with Lisa about scheduling Andy on Friday for any finals. I don't know their availability. If 50 Sherwood calls for a final, I will take care of that one myself. I can do 101 Cricket as well, if Mill River can't. Should be an easy one. Be carful with Boston and Gray. They can be pushy. Call us. Don't give out any permits to them. That is all I can think of now. Thanks for holding the fort down. S Susan Sawyer, R.S. Public Health Director office 978 688-9540 fax 978 688-8476 1 Y Memorandum To: Lincoln Daley, Town Planner Michael McGuire, Building Insp. Alison McKay, Conservation Administrator Bill Hmurciak, DPW Director Tim Willett, Director of Sewer and Water CC: Curt Bellavance, CD&S Director Ray Santilli, Asst. Town Manager Human Resources Director From: Susan Sawyer, Health Director Date: 10/5/05 Re: 101 Cricket Lane To all Department Heads listed above, MOW The Health Department is in the process of assisting Mr. and Mrs. Willis Hendley, the owner's of the property listed above, complete corrections to their septic system. The intention of the owners is to occupy this property in the near future. The septic system approval letter sent from the Health Office on December 16, 2003 states that. "it is the responsibility of the applicant and/ or the applicant's septic system designer, septic system installer or other representative to ensure that all other state and municipal requirements are met. These may include review by the Conservation Commission, Zoning Board, Planning Board, Building Inspector, Plumbing Inspector andl or Electrical Inspector. The issuance of a Disposal system Construction Permit shall not construe and/or imply compliance with any of the aforementioned requirements." The owners have stated that "It is our intent that all applicable state and municipal requirements are met. However, we are not aware of any additionall or unusual requirements that fall into this category and request that the Town of North Andover notify us if it is aware of any that fit this description. ". The Health Office is not aware of any conditions that may affect the corrections needed on the septic system, however in an effort to assist in bringing this project to completion it was prudent to let each department know that these owners have intention to complete this site. Beyond the septic issues there may be other areas that need to be addressed by the owners regarding your respective departments. This letter serves as a request for each department to check your files and determie whether or not there remain any outstanding issues that may need attention/ or correction prior to the r 4 October 5, 2005 homeowners receiving there occupancy permit. If you are aware of any other departments within the town that may not have been included in this memo, but may have issues, it is requeted that you pass this memo on to the appropriate persons. Please address any issues relating to 101 Cricket Lane that you may find outstanding to: Willis & Rubina Heldley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 Thank you 2 Awe-zl TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER of KORpM q Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES o? HEALTH DEPARTMENT 400 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER_ MASSACHUSETTS 0 18 45 �,SS ICHUS �4y 978.688.9540 — Phone Susan Y. Sawyer, RENS/RS 978.688.8476 — FAX Public Health Director E-MAIL: heaithdeptaTao«not'northandorcr.com. WEBSITE: http://svNrw.townofnorthandover.com October 4, 2005 Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 Re: 101 Cricket Lane Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley, This correspondence is in regards to your property listed above. The Health Department has received your correspondence dated September 25, 2005 in response to the approval letter sent by Heidi Griffin sent December 16, 2003. On a point by point correlation to your letter, the Health Department acknowledges agreement with your comments with the following items: # 1, #3, #5, #6, #7 and #8. In regards to #2, please see the attached memo sent to all land use and public works department heads. It is this office's anticipation that each department head that has concerns with regard to this parcel will contact you directly if necessary. In regards to # 4, in response to your comments, a conversation was held with Mr. Neil Bateson, a licensed septic inspector and installer. He recalled conducting the system inspection that you mentioned in accordance with the Health Department's request. His records indicated that his camera identified the damaged pipe. In his professional opinion he did not see a reason to completely expose parts of a system that has not been in use as the data would be minimally useful. Mr. Bateson's record did not indicate data on the condition of the 1500 -gallon septic tank nor did he recall viewing this component. He did recall the distribution box being level. It is this department's view that an observation of the distribution box and confirmation of the flow would be useful, in that if it has become unequal there is a small item that can be placed over the outlets to regulate flow. This item is inexpensive and very effective, therefore, it is determined that the requirement of the previous item #4 has been modified to require that upon installation of the pipe, the distribution box shall be exposed for the purpose of determining if speed levelers are needed to be installed. As was stated in the previous letter, please note that if you are considering installation this calendar year please note that the 2005 septic installation season closes on November 3&, Permit issuance to install systems end November 15th. If you have any questions regarding this C �' I/ Ave -,go correspondence or any other aspect of your septic installation please contact the Health Department. Your effort to provide a properly functioning septic system for your dwelling is greatly appreciated. Sincer y, S an Sawyer, REHS/RSK�� Public Health Director Cc: Ray Santilli, Asst. Town Mgr. And Human Resources Dir. Curt Bellavance, Community Development and Services Director Enc. Memo dated Otober 4, 2005 Hendley's letter dated September 25, 2005 v Ms. Susan Y. Sawyer Public Health Director Town of North Andover Health Department 400 Osgood St North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Susan: � ,lure-�Siy Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 September 25, 2005 Thank you for your letter of August 19th. We have been laboring under some adversity to complete our property, and would now like to proceed with the intent of getting into the house this year. The last communication that we received from North Andover on this matter placed several requirements on us, which we believe are un-yvar..ranted and are consistent with the behavior -that has characterized our difficulties with the Town of North Andover over a period of several years. With the apparent change in personnel in the department we would like to use this opportunity to respond to these requirements and make a fresh start on getting into our home in an expedited manner. To this end in the following section we have included the original requirement from Ms Heidi Griffin, and our response. It is our hope that we can either meet to resolve these differences or receive a follow up mail from your department acknowledging our requested changes. 1. If site conditions are found in the field to be different from those indicated on the design plan and/or soil evaluation, the originally issued Disposal System Construction Permit is void, installation shall stop, and the applicant shall reapply for a new Disposal Systems Construction Permit (3 10 CMR 15.020(1)). Prior to commencement of the septic system repair we will retain our landscape contractors to return the site to the condition prior to the aborted attempt to implement a repair based on the previous approved repair plan, in November 2002 at which bine excavation for the footings of a larger slope retaining wall was started. This excavation will be refilled, and slope returned to the approximate grade prior to commencement of work on the new approved plan. This landscaping does not consist of any work subject to Title 5 inspection, which will be separately performed by our licensed septic installer. 2. It is the responsibility of the applicant and/or the a4Ulicant's septic system designer, septic system installer or other representative to ensure that all other state and municipal requirements are met. These may include review by the Conservation Commission, Zoning Board, Planning Board, Building Inspector, Plumbing Inspector and/ or Electrical Inspector. The issuance of a Disposal System Construction Permit shall not construe and/or imply compliance with any of the aforementioned requirements. It is our intent that all applicable state and municipal requirements are met. However, we are not aware of any additional or unusual requirements that fall into this category, and request that the Town of North Andover notify us if is aware of any that fit this description. O c ,Dmt A� —2— September 25, 2005 3. The piping in the distribution lateral is to be comprised of Schedule 40 PVC pursuant to the regulations of the North Andover Board of Health. The piping material will be of Schedule 40 as described. 4. The entire septic ystem is to be inspected by a septic system inspector licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection prior to issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Previous notice of three business days shall be provided to the North Andover Board of Health before commencement of said inspection. The inspection shall include at a minimum all components of an inspection as indicated in Title 5 plus the uncovering and exposing for visual examination of all concrete components and all piping shall be examined either remotely with camera equipment or physically exposed and visually examined. If repairs are necessary a Disposal Systems Construction Permit must be issued to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer prior to commencement of repairs, with repair inspections performed by the Board of Health. In response to some allegations by Mr. Sawyer, the system was video inspected in September 2002 by Mr. Bateson of Bateson Enterprises, in the presence of Ms. Starr (the health director at the time) and our expert - Mr. Stephen Eriksen of Norse Environmental services. Other than the known minor damage to the end of one leach pipe no other damage was found. If Ms. Starr failed to document this event, we can provide a written statement from Mr. Eriksen to this effect. We therefore believe that this requirement has already been met and does not need to be repeated. The system was inspected and passed to all except final grading (a ToNA requirement, not Title 5) during its original installation. Given the subsequent video inspection we see no reason for further inspection of the system, other than the components of the repair as part of the normal inspection process for repairs. 5. The leach stone underneath theportion of Existing Leach Trench #2 which is slated to be abandoned shall be removed and the void filled with sand meeting the specifications of Title 5 fill material. The leach stones under the abandoned section of pipe will be removed and replaced with sand as specified. 6. The locations of the property boundaries and the proposed amendment to Leach Trench #2 are to be staked by a Massachusetts Re gistered Land Surveyorprior to commencement of construction. The revised property line and leach trench amendments will be staked by our surveyor — Land Tech, of Westford MA - prior to the septic repair, but not necessarily prior to our landscaping cleanup of the area prior to construction. 7. The Certificate of Compliance must be signed by the designer, installer and municipal health official prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. This will be per normal inspection and approval processes. C ^ JWe-4ztyql —3— September 25, 2005 A more detailedplan is to be submitted showing how the retaining wall .specified on the design plan will maintain compliance with 310 CMB 15.211 (1) (4) including the material of construction, placement of any necessary impervious barriers, etc. The purpose for the wall is to provide structural support for the slope — hence "retaining wall". There is no needed or intended role in the mitigation of sewage breakout. In the judgment of our septic designer, a CMR 15.255(2) compliant wall is not required, as the proposed stabilization wall is a maximum height of 2' above grade, and for 2/3rds of its total length of 35' varies between 0' - 2' high, and as such does not require any footings. As designed it plays no role in mitigating sewage breakout. Common engineering practices for this type of wall are to use a simple boulder retaining wall, although for cosmetic purposes we plan on using architectural quality concrete blocks. Additionally, there is no requirement that the wall be in any way impervious. The guideline G02-1 (in the first paragraph on page 4 of 5) makes it clear that an impervious barrier (poured concrete or otherwise) is only required when both the horizontal setback of 15' cannot be met and the side slope is steeper than 3:1. In our case we can meet the 15' setback, so this condition is not true and an impervious barrier is not required, only a stabilization wall. We hope that these responses are clear and taken in the spirit in which they are intended, namely to ensure that all appropriate Title 5 requirements for our property are met, but that no unnecessary or unsupported additional requirements are placed upon us so that we may proceed with an expedited closure of our approvals and issuance of occupancy permit. If you have any immediate or urgent concerns, I can be reached at most times on my cell phone (978 257 2636). As our landscapers, surveyors and septic repair contractors will be starting work imminently, I would appreciate that I be contacted if there are any issues, rather than have them harassed directly by your Mr. Brian Lagrasse — as was the case last time. Sincerely, dit, Willis Hendley cc. Ray Santini, Asst. Town Mgr.., HR Dir.., Interim CD&S Dir. )W11k16, NOI2 FH ANDOVER J °t No psN,h Office of COMMUNI'I ; DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES 3a •`� - °°� HEAL'T'H DEPARTMENT 49 400 OSGOOD STREET "°°+--••.`' * �� NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 978.688.9540 — Phone Susan V. Sawyer, REHS/RS 978.688.8476 — FAX Public Health Director E-MAIL: healthdept(atownofnorthandover.com WEBSITE: http://www.townofnortbandover.com August 19, 2005 Willis & Rubina Hendley 165 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 Re: 101 Cricket Lane Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley, This correspondence is in regards to your property listed above. On a routine review of open projects it was noted that this property was still outstanding. Your amended subsurface disposal system plan was approved on December 16, 2003. The Health Department file indicates that this is valid for 3 years from the date of approval and will not expire until December 16, 2006. If you are considering installation this calendar year please note that the 2005 septic installation season closes on November 301h. Permit issuance to install systems end November 15th. For your convenience I have enclosed a copy of our list of currently licensed septic installers. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence or any other aspect of your septic installation please contact the Health Department. Sine ly, san Sawyer, R HSIR Public Health Director Cc: Ray Santilli, Asst. Town Mgr, HR Dir., Interim CD&S Dir. Enc. Septic Installers List r� Page 1 of 1 r1 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Dan Ottenheimer [info@millriverconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:20 PM To: Heidi Griffin; Brian LaGrasse; Pamela Dellechiaie Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Heidi, Brian and Pam, Attached please find a plan approval letter for the property at 101 Cricket Lane. The approval is based on several conditions which we think are prudent based on some of the confusing issues which have arisen at this parcel. Some of the approval conditions frankly would have been reasons to disapprove the design on other parcels but due to the history here we thought everyone involved would feel better about a "thumbs up" letter with conditions rather than a "thumbs down" letter. Dan Daniel Ottenheimer, President Mill River Consulting Septic System Management Services 5 Blackburn Center Gloucester, MA 01930-2259 978-282-0014 or 1-800-377-3044 fax: 978-282-0012 www.millriverconsulting.com info@millriverconsulting com 12/16/2003 Gt TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER F NQR7X q Office of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES HEALTH DEPARTMENT Oft si q 27 CHARLES STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 �'Ss:CH�s Heidi Griffin 978.688.9540 — Phone Acting Health Director 978.6889542 — FAX December 16, 2003 Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 RE: Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Plan for 101 Cricket Lane, Map 107A, Lot 286, North Andover, Massachusetts Dear Mr.. & Mrs. Hendley, The North Andover Board of Health has completed review of the septic system design plans for the above referenced property submitted on your behalf by Norse Environmental Services, Inc. dated November 24, 2003 and received by this office on November 26, 2003, along with a letter of amendment by Norse Environmental Services, Inc. dated December 16, 2003. The design has been approved for use in the construction of an amended onsite septic system for the existing dwelling at this site. This approval is valid for three years from the date of this letter and during this time a licensed septic system installer must obtain a permit and complete this work, and a Certificate of Compliance must be endorsed by the installer, designer and the Town of North Andover. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. If site conditions are found in the field to be different from those indicated on the design plan and/or soil evaluation, the originally issued Disposal System Construction Permit is void, installation shall stop, and the applicant shall reapply for a new Disposal Systems Construction Permit (3 10 CMR 15.020(1)). 2. It is the responsibility of the applicant and/or the applicant's septic system designer, septic system installer or other representative to ensure that all other state and municipal requirements are met. These may include review by the Conservation Commission, Zoning Board, Planning Board, Building Inspector, Plumbing Inspector and/or Electrical Inspector. The issuance of a Disposal System Construction Permit shall not construe and/or imply compliance with any of the aforementioned requirements. The piping in the distribution lateral is to be comprised of Schedule 40 PVC pursuant to the regulations of the North Andover Board of Health. 4.. The entire septic system is to be inspected by a septic system inspector licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection prior to issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Previous notice of three business days shall be provided to the North Andover Board of Health before commencement of said inspection. The inspection shall include at a minimum all components of an inspection as indicated in Title 5 plus the uncovering and exposing for visual examination of all concrete components and all piping shall be examined either remotely with camera equipment or physically exposed and visually examined. If repairs are necessary a Disposal Systems Construction Permit must be issued to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer prior to commencement of repairs, with repair inspections performed by the Board of Health. 5. The leach stone underneath the portion of Existing Leach Trench #2 which is slated to be abandoned shall be removed and the void filled with sand meeting the specifications of Title 5 fill material. 6. The locations of the property boundaries and the proposed amendment to Leach Trench #2 are to be staked by a Massachusetts Registered Land Surveyor prior to commencement of construction. 7. The Certificate of Compliance must be signed by the designer, installer and municipal health official prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. 8. A more detailed plan is to be submitted showing how the retaining wall specified on the design plan will maintain compliance with 310 CMR 15.211 (1) (4) including the material of construction, placement of any necessary impervious barriers, etc. Your effort to provide a properly functioning septic system for your dwelling is greatly appreciated. The Health Department may be reached at 978-688-9540 with any questions you might have. Sincerely, Heidi Griffin, Acting Health Director encl: List of licensed septic system installers cc: file Norse Environmental Services, Inc. OWN Of ORTH AN � BOARD OF HEALTH i/ � G 1-J Location A 7-h z Permit # � Food Service $ Retail Food $ Limited Retail $ Seasonal $ Disposal Works Installers $ Disposal Works Construction $ Soil Testing $ Design Approval Permit �j. $ -5 Dumpster Permit / $ _ Burial Permit $ Swimming Pool Permit $ Animal Permit $ Recreational Camp Permit $ _ Well Construction Permit $ Funeral Directors Permit $ Massage Establishment License $ Massage Practice License $ Suntanning Establishment $ Offal/Trash Hauler $ Other $ 717 t/ Health Agent White - Applicant Yellow - Dept. Pink - Treasurer IaXo�-5-7 Town of North Andover HEALTH DEPARTMENT 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540w 2 .r healthdepWownothorthandover. com SEPTIC PLAN SUBMITTAL FORM DATE OF SUBMISSION: NOV�-MW zr,�, 2Db3 SITE LOCATION: /01 ("T 2.) cklcK�T Lry ENGINEER:-UaCGl-AS L2eS,, HOk, 0&jA01Wk—AH L NEW PLANS: YES $225.00/Plan Check #: (Includes 154NE"L" and one Re -Review Only) REVISED PLANS: A pYao�ov,�, PIM :S X $ 75.00/Plan- ie-clCheck #: q47 SITE EVALUATION FORMS INCLUDED: YES NO LOCAL UPGRADE FORM INCLUDED: YES NO Telephone #: 0179 & L j q *&4a Fax #: E-mail: d 0 X011Q 0 S HOMEOWNER NAME: W c LLJ S+ P>A_e jAjA tfEAra!,!��j OFFICE USE ONLY When the submission is complete (including check): I. ✓ Date stamp plans and letter 2. ✓Complete and attach Receipt 3. t -,O' Copy File; Forward to Consultant 4. Enter on Low Sheet and Database Raymond Santdh Assistant Town Manager Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision: 000"ow! a -;r Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Monday October 27, 2003 Delivered by Hand Our Proposal to Address the Removal and Replacement of the Septic System at our above -referenced New -Construction Property and the Encroachment of our Deeded Septic Grading Easement Dear Mr Santilli, Further to our letter dated September 17, 2003, we wish to inform you of a solution devised by us to remedy the following serious issues that have been left unaddressed and unresolved to date, namely: 1. the encroachment of a large section of the septic grading easement deeded for our use on the adjacent property, as well as a minor encroachment of a portion of the adjacent property's driveway across our property line; 2. the adverse impact to the adjacent property in the event we exercise our right to use our deeded septic easement for the purposes it is designated; 3. the removal and replacement of a significant portion of the existing septic installation at our property as outlined in our September 17 letter to you as a result of existing conditions at our property that preclude these components from complying with Title 5 setback requirements for new -construction; 4. the need for a poured -concrete septic wallin the vicinity of the property line (upon replacement of the existing system) that had never formed part of the original approved septic design at our property nor the subsequent septic installation based on it. Our solution addresses the above issues, as well as the inequitable situation in which the owners of the property adjacent to ours have frill use and enjoyment of their property as well as that gained by encroachment of our easement, with the consequent negative impact on the use and enjoyment of ours. Some weeks ago, we presented this solution in the form of a proposal to the owners of the property at 115 (Lot 3) on which our easement is located and our attorney has confirmed their acceptance of the following: removal of our entire existing deeded septic grading easement (approx 1600s fl from Ms Simon's property and addition of a new small area at the street right-of-way line deeded for septic access and grading for our property; may minor adjustment of property lines between Lots 2 and 3 for a total transfer of approx 1500sf to us, with no change in frontage for either property and with associated setbacks and lot sizes meeting zoning requirements. As a result, we will be in a position to shortly submit: (a) an ANR plan prepared by a certified surveyor and Form A jointly -prepared between ourselves and the owners of Lot 3 for the property -line adjustment; (b) a septic plan for our property based on this property -line adjustment that is in the form of a repair rather than a re -design in that it o�jl involves moving one existing leach trench along its axis without the need for any poured -concrete septic wall, whilst ensuring full compliance with Title 5 minimum requirements for new - construction with regard to all setbacks for the soil absorption system for this leach trench, as well as Title 5 minimum requirements for new -construction for the system as a whole. We trust we will receive co-operation of the various Town departments involved in our submissions so that we are able to correctly and fully comply with Title 5 compliance requirements for our new -construction property this season, weather permitting, in order to prevent our otherwise habitable property remaining unoccupied by us for the second winter/spring running. Yours i�l� Willis �i Rubina Hendley cc Mr Mark Rees, Town Manager Ms Rosemary Smedile, Chairman, Board of Selectmen Ms Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director and Acting Health Director Mr Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner Mr Michael McGuire, Building Inspector Mr J Justin Woods, Planning Dept Director Mr Alberto Angles, Chairman, Planning Board Mr Brian LaGrasse, Health Inspector Building Dept file for 101 Cricket Lane Health Dept file for 101 Cricket Lane 4 r �1 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER 120 MAIN STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 Raymond T Santilh Assistant Town Manager & Human Resources Director October 22, 2003 Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hendley: `6N 1,0 (1C� 2 9 2003 /9::A,l IAI;I--- TEL (978) 688-9516 FAX (978) 688-9556 Subsequent to the receipt of your September 17'h correspondence, the Town of North Andover's septic consultant was directed to review the file for the property at 101 Cricket Lane. Enclosed please find a report from Mr. Daniel Ottenheimer of Mill River Consulting. If you have any questions and/or comments, please call me. Sincerely, I Raymond T. Santilli Assistant Town Manager & Human Resources Director Enclosure cc., Ms. Heidi Griffin, Director, Community Development & Services (w/enclosure) Mr. Brian Lagrasse, Health Department (w/enclosure) c MILL RIVER CONSULTING Septic System Management Services October 15, 2003 Brain LaGrasse Health Inspector Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: 101 Cricket Lane Dear Mr. LaGrasse, As requested by the North Andover Board of Health, Mill River Consulting has reviewed the file for the property at 101 Cricket Lane in order to provide guidance towards resolution of the outstanding issues. To that end we make the following observations and suggestions. RETAINING WALUGRADING The approved subdivision plan apparently contains a grading easement to allow fill material to be brought onto the adjacent parcel to meet certain requirements of the septic system design and the state regulations. Apparently a driveway now exists in this easement and the placement of fill in this location would be problematic. Based on review of the file it does appear possible for a retaining wall to be constructed which will be in compliance with state and local codes and remain entirely within the bounds of the locus property. This will reduce or eliminate a series of questions and concerns which exist about final grading, legal documentation and the ability for the adjacent property owner to utilize their driveway. Design of a poured concrete retaining wall to meet the regulatory grading requirements while staying within the property line to the North of the soil absorption system likely could be completed. State regulations allow the 10' offset from the soil absorption system to the impervious barrier and retaining wall to be reduced, without a variance, when site conditions require. After a proper design for the wall has been completed and reviewed, a Disposal Systems Construction Permit may be issued to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer to construct the wall. Inspections should be performed by the Board of Health and the designer to assure compliance with the design and regulatory requirements. Prior to construction the property line should be staked by a land surveyor, and an as -built plan of the wall and its location should be provided by the designer. Additionally, a copy of the recorded easement should be provided by the owners for the Board of Health records. 5 Blackburn Center, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-2259 toll free 1. 800.377 3044 978.282.0014 info@amilhiverconsulting.com C" MILL RIVER CONSULTING Septic System Management Services 2. EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM CONDITION Letters and plan notes indicate some portions of the septic system may have been damaged. All concrete components should be exposed and visually examined, while all piping should be examined either remotely with camera equipment or physically exposed and visually examined. If repairs are necessary a Disposal Systems Construction Permit should be issued to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer, with inspections performed by the Board of Health. It is apparently already known that replacement of one of the distribution laterals will be required. 3. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE For a Certificate of Compliance to be valid it must be signed by the designer, installer and municipal health official. Upon proper completion of the wall design and construction, and the inspection and repair of the septic system components, the Town of North Andover should be able to sign the Certificate of Compliance. Based on correspondence in the file, it is unclear if the original Disposal Systems Installer would undertake such action. The former or current property owner(s) will need to work with the current or another Disposal Systems Installer to obtain the required endorsements before a legally valid Certificate of Compliance can be issued. We hope this file review and accompanying suggestions have provided the Town of North Andover with the information necessary to resolve this matter. Feel free to contact me should any additional information be necessary. Sincerely, Dawd oftwxwtm Daniel Ottenheimer President 5 Blackburn Center, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-2259 toll free 1.800.377.3044 978 282 0014 infoQamillriverconsulting.com MILL .RIVER CONSULTING Septic System Management Services the designer. Additionally, a copy of the recorded easement should be provided by the owners for the Board of Health records. 2. EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM CONDITION Letters and plan notes indicate some portions of the septic system may have been damaged. All concrete components should be exposed and visually examined, while all piping should be examined either remotely with camera equipment or physically exposed and visually examined. If repairs are necessary a Disposal Systems Construction Permit should be issued to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer, with inspections performed by the Board of Health. It is apparently already known that replacement of one of the distribution laterals will be required. 3. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE For a Certificate of Compliance to be valid it must be signed by the designer, installer and municipal health official. Upon proper completion of the wall design and construction, and the inspection and repair of the septic system components, the Town of North Andover should be able to sign the Certificate of Compliance. Based on correspondence in the file, it is unclear if the original Disposal Systems Installer would undertake such action. The former or current property owner(s) will need to work with the current or another Disposal Systems Installer to obtain the required endorsements before a legally valid Certificate of Compliance can be issued. We hope this file review and accompanying suggestions have provided the Town of North Andover with the information necessary to resolve this matter. Feel free to contact me should any additional information be necessary. Sincerely, Daniel Ottenheimer Daniel Ottenheimer President 5 Blackburn Center, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-2259 toll free 1.800.377.3044 978.282.0014 info@millriverconsulting.com r MILL RIVER CONSULTING Septic System Management Services October 15, 2003 Brain LaGrasse Health Inspector Town of North Andover 2.7 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: 101 Cricket Lane Dear Mr. LaGrasse, As requested by the North Andover Board of Health, Mill River Consulting has reviewed the file for the property at 101 Cricket Lane in order to provide guidance towards resolution of the outstanding issues. To that end we make the following observations and suggestions. RETAINING WALL/GRADING The approved subdivision plan apparently contains a grading easement to allow fill material to be brought onto the adjacent parcel to meet certain requirements of the septic system design and the state regulations. Apparently a driveway now exists in this easement and the placement of fill in this location would be problematic. Based on review of the file it does appear possible for a retaining wall to be constructed which will be in compliance with state and local codes and remain entirely within the bounds of the locus property. This will reduce or eliminate a series of questions and concerns which exist about final grading, legal documentation and the ability for the adjacent property owner to utilize their driveway. Design of a poured concrete retaining wall to meet the regulatory grading requirements while staying within the property line to the North of the soil absorption system likely could be completed. State regulations allow the 10' offset from the soil absorption system to the impervious barrier and retaining wall to be reduced, without a variance, when site conditions require. After a proper design for the wall has been completed and reviewed, a Disposal Systems Construction Permit may be issued to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer to construct the wall. Inspections should be performed by the Board of Health and the designer to assure compliance with the design and regulatory requirements. Prior to construction the property line should be staked by a land surveyor, and an as -built plan of the wall and its location should be provided by 5 Blackburn Center, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-2259 toll free 1.800.377.3044 978.282.0014 info@millriverconsulting. com � m \ / \ - \ / / h/ 5 0 . 1 \ \ � m� � 0 0 / y 2z2� ��'m § LO 0.4 \ §Via)/) w«| - \ / / h/ 5 0 . 1 \ \ � m� � 0 0 / y 2z2� Firms lot cR, c4er cA,.x,- Mr Raymond Santilli Assistant Town Manager Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 018 TOVI,'N OF P(Y.F- 0 OF HEN—Ty_ 8 M P6 1 Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Wednesday September 17, 2003 Delivered by Hand Re: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision: Notification of Invalidity of Septic Design Plan [Oct 15, 2002 revision and NABOH approval Nov 4, 2002] for above -referenced New -Construction property Dear Mr Santil i, On August 21, we determined that the above -referenced septic design plan, depicting construction of a 75 feet long septic wall, 4 feet above grade at its highest point, to bring the existing septic installation at our new -construction property into compliance with minimum setbacks, appeared to be invalid. We believed that the deeded septic easement appurtenant to our property precluded use for construction, since this easement was described solely for the purposes of access and addition and/or movement of soil or earth material. Therefore, it appeared to us that the section of the septic wall construction that had been depicted within this easement would not be legally permissible. By September 5, we had received independent confirmation of our doubts from our septic designer and real estate attorney. We are legally -obligated to disclose this information despite the approval received from your Health Director Ms Sandra Starr ten months ago for implementation of the above -referenced plan. We also discovered other deficiencies per regulations in both the preparation and subsequent approval of the plan, such as: • failure to provide written proof of a septic easement, per NABOH 9.02; • failure to provide evidence (book and page number) of the registry -recorded septic easement, per NABOH 9.02; • failure to depict names of abutters, per NABOH 8.02j; • failure to list variance from NABOH 9.02 "Retaining walls used to make breakout according to 310 CMR 15.255(2) shall be reinforced poured concrete" in proposing the "Versa -Lok retaining wall"; • failure to depict water lines and other subsurface utilities, per 310 CMR 15.220(m) and NABOH 8.02u; • failure to state disclaimer "No wetland or watercourse exists within 100 feet from the leaching facility or reserve area", per NABOH 8.02s. E Alooyooe�_,�, A complication in our efforts to bring our existing septic installation into compliance with setback requirements is the fact that a portion of our deeded septic easement, in the vicinity of a leach trench adjacent to the property line, was actually compromised during construction on the adjacent lot. If we exercised our right to use of this easement, the addition of soil to a height of 4 feet would create significant topographical changes that would prevent our neighbors from any access to their garages. As we stated in a November 11, 2002, communication to Ms Heidi Griffin "We cannot, in all sanity, leave our neighbors with this obstruction." On our behalf, our septic designer has determined that upon removal of the incorrectly - depicted septic wall from this section of easement: • it will not be possible to bring the existing septic leach trench adjacent to the property line into compliance with minimum setback requirements by the addition of soil, even if this portion of our septic easement had not been compromised. Therefore, our only option - based on existing site conditions, which aside from our completed landscaping, are the same as when the original septic installation was completed in November 2000 - is the: (a) removal of both existing leach trenches and replacement with a three -trench design; (b) removal and replacement of the existing distribution box; (c) construction of a slope -retention and sewage -mitigation septic wall, which is necessarily longer and higher to compensate for loss of use of our septic easement on the adjacent property for the purposes of soil addition. We have received verbal estimates for the work (a) — (c) above conservatively estimated at $40,000 that do not include restoration of the landscaping. This course of action will incur further financial hardship for us and the delay associated with its administration and implementation could place us in jeopardy of not being able to occupy our otherwise habitable property for the second winter running. It is small comfort to us that the Town of North Andover is only now considering possible dismissal action against Ms Starr, when we are in the position of having to dig up a substantial portion of a septic system installed to completion under her oversight whilst our former builder was legal owner and for which she also let the installer of record walk away. With regard to the septic installation at our property during this time, Ms Starr failed to keep a complete record or enforce the submission of DEP-mandated documentation. This has effectively meant that events behind the septic non-compliance at our new -construction property are concealed from scrutiny. One of the many significant failures on her part was the Title 5 requirement, before sale of a property, that mandates the previous owner (our former builder) to submit the results of a septic inspection for a system for which a local board of health has not issued a certificate , ompNn^ Yours s* Willis A M Hendley &_44 �Jlcl Rubina Hendley cc Mr Mark Rees, Town Manager Ms Rosemary Smedile, Chairman, Board of Selectmen Ms Heidi Griffin, Acting Health Director and Community Development Director Mr Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner Mr Michael McGuire, Building Inspector Mr J Justin Woods, Planning Department Mr Brian LaGrasse, Health Inspector Building Department file for 101 Cricket Lane Health Department file for 101 Cricket Lane Town of North Andover Office of the Health Department Community Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Heidi Griffin Telephone (978) 688-9540 Acting Public Health Director Fax (978) 688-9542 September 5, 2003 Willis and Rubma Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 RE: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane Septic Design Approvals Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley: Septic design plans dated Revised October 15, 2002, for the aforementioned address were submitted to the Board of Health for design approvals on October 21, 2002. There was a technical deficiency with regard to the retaining walls bottom elevation not being included on the design plans. Mrs. Sandra Starr spoke with Norse Environmental on November 1, 2002 and requested the addition of the retaining wall elevation. Revised design plans dated November 1, 2002 were submitted and subsequently approved on November 4, 2002. Verbal approvals were granted to Norse Environmental regarding the septic design plans with written approval to follow. The septic design plans dated September 23, 2002, Revised October 15, 2002 and November 1, 2002, are currently approved and signed. You may pick up copies of the signed plan at the Health Department at you earliest convenience. Sincerely, Bridn J. LaGrasse Health Inspector Cc: Ray Santilli, Assistant Town Manager Heidi Griffin, Acting Public Health Director File BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 6889545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 RECEIVED Willis & Rubina Hendley AUG 2 6 2003 9(,J 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 NORTH ANDOVER CONSERVATION COMMISSION Ms Sandra Starr Director, Health Dept Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Delivered by hand RE: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision Dear Ms Starr, Fax 978 685 1064 Tuesday August 26, 2003 OF HE 1--" fto At your earliest convenience, please submit copies of the following with regard to the septic system non-compliance at the above property. Transmittal via fax is acceptable: 1) current list of certified septic installers for the Town of North Andover; 2) copies of your letters sent to Mr Steven Eriksen of Norse Environmental Services with regard to your disapproval of the original design plan submitted by him dated 9/23/02 and your subsequent approval of his 10/15/02 revision to this, per NA BOH septic regulation 2.04 Review Letters: "Approval or disapproval letters will be sent to the designer upon completion of the plan review" Yours sincerely, Willis Hendley Rubina Hendley cc Delivered by hand: Mr Mark Rees, Town Manager Mr Ray Santilli, Assistant Town Manager Ms Rosemary Smedile, Chairman, Board of Selectmen TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER BOARD OF HEALTH 27 CHARLES STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 FRANCIS P. MACMILLAN, M.D. CHAIRMAN Sandra Starr, R.S., C.H.O. Public Health Director MEMORANDUM DATE: May 20, 2003 TO: Heidi Criffin, Director, CD&S FROM: Sandra Starr, Health Director RE: Lot 2 Cricket Lane (101) Status t NORT{i 7 0 A 1SSNCHUSEt Telephone (978) 688-9540 FAX (978) 688-9512 The Health Department is awaiting the application of a North Andover Licensed septic installer to repair and complete the septic system. The installation process stalled when the licensed installer stopped working on the site before the process was finished. At some subsequent point the pipe in the leach area was broken. There were also issues with an easement, such that the original design required a modification in order to comply with Title 5 of the State Environmental Code. A design was developed by Steve Erickson of Norse Environmental, submitted and approved by the Health Department. All that remains is for a licensed installer to • obtain a permit from the Health Department, • construct a retaining wall according to the modified design, • replace the broken pipe, • have the repair and wall inspected, • cover the system, and • have the Health Department perform a final grade inspection. A septic installer's list was sent to the owners on April 11, 2003. Willis & Rubina HendleyC�' 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669�,� Monday May 19, 2003 Delivered by hand TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER OPEN LETTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND SELECTPERSONS Re: Our Seeking Occupancy for 101 Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision Our Open Letter supplements the first formal protest we made in writing to your Town Manager, in a communication dated Friday November 22, 2002, of how your officials connected with the building process engaged in maneuvers to make our ability to obtain final sign -offs for our Occupancy Permit for our above home -to -be as miserable as possible, so that, presumably, we are encouraged to give up trying to ever become residents of North Andover and/or that these deliberate delays lead us into financial constraints to make us foreclose on our property. In our account to your Town Manager of what occurred to us regarding the final sign -offs from your Plumbing/Gas and Fire Inspectors, we condensed the run-around we received from them. The actual events were a disgraceful and lengthy subjugation of us to meeting supposed conditions that chopped and changed ad infinitum so that a final -sign -off process that took A FEW MINUTES in IDENTICAL circumstances at other properties in this subdivision were made into weeks and months in our case. The intent of these officials had nothing to do with any semblance of performing their duties in a professional manner - it was designed to cause us maximum aggravation. Rubina's vilification in the public record (and our staunch belief that these officials would have thought twice about doing this to a white person) by your Conservation Administrator Ms Julie Parrino and Director of Public Works Mr Robert Beshara is an outrage perpetrated by these officials of a magnitude that is egregious and reckless in the extreme. We are both the legal owners of this property, Ms Parrino and Mr Beshara had met both of us prior to sending out their recriminatory letters, yet it was Rubina who was singled out by them despite these alleged misdeeds being of a general nature allegedly affecting our property as a whole. These letters would have been despicable enough addressed to us both, but specifically targeting Rubina speaks volumes for the mindset of their senders. In these, Rubina was blamed for a series of alleged wrong -doings (including a DEP citation for criminal activity by Ms Parrino). Further, the supposed infractions within these letters were stated as fact with neither support nor substantiation at the time these officials made their written determinations, other than what appears to be remarkable psychic abilities on their part. With this ability, Mr Beshara also deemed that elements on our property be demolished or made threats of demolition against them with no basis whatsoever for his orders of destruction, not even providing an as -built plan. [Mr Beshara's threat to demolish a beautiful stone -wall directly adjacent to our property was particularly spiteful in its intent, since the Page 1 of 18 `story' behind its construction is common knowledge in the subdivision.] Mr Beshara also conveniently omitted referring in his letter to the one-hour he spent haranguing Rubina at what he describes only as "his site visit" on May 23, and preferred instead to refer to what sounded like a jaunty tete-a-tete "with the homeowner and landscape contractor" on May 24, when in fact that day both of us, not just Rubina, were harassed by him. Both these reports in the public record also contain other outright falsehoods. In the case of Mr Beshara's letter, the net result was to let the developer, our former builder and Mr Beshara himself off the hook for the real reason the town easement on our property was compromised by having the convenience of "Mrs Rubina Hendley" (already notorious as the subdivision villain courtesy of Ms Parrino) as the scapegoat. Then a few days after receipt of Mr Beshara's letter, the developer's daughter, Ms Gerry -Lynn Darcy, also sends Rubina a letter expressing righteous indignation at all the awful horrors Rubina has committed, as catalogued for her by Mr Beshara, and goes on to threaten legal action against Rubina for these (these, too, determined by Ms Darcy with what appear to be the same remarkable psychic abilities as Mr Beshara's and Ms Parrino's). Both Mr Beshara and Ms Darcy must think we were born yesterday to not realize how obviously orchestrated this was. No doubt this game so wantonly played by them both with defiling someone else's reputation also led to bond money being released by your town. Because these letters take the form of `official' pronouncements in the written public record, they will be taken seriously and assumed by many (as has already been the case within this subdivision) to be true without any question of their veracity or validity. Such libelous and defamatory statements soon became talking points in the subdivision, we learnt, and repeated with glee by the likes of your Health Administrator Mr Brian La Grasse in conversations with us. We have suffered enough from Mr LaGrasse's rudeness and sarcasm - we are not alone in remarking on this official's atrocious behavior - without his adding this slanderous fuel to his repertoire. [For instance, Willis asked a perfectly abstract question in an August 2002 phone conversation with Mr LaGrasse for advice on what we were supposed to do and was met with the answer: "Mr Sawyer is reputable. The reason you are in so much trouble is that you don't know what you're doing." By inference, we presume we are not "reputable".] These letters have understandably caused considerable distress to Rubina, that she feels to this day, as well as to Willis and our entire immediate family. Thus, there is an entire subdivision in your town with multiple examples of violations (some serious) committed by the developer and various contractors that can all be corroborated with hard facts, not mere suppositions, but which have remained virtually unreported, un -addressed and uncorrected by your officials, and yet the only damning record of malfeasance within it by any individual is that against brown -skinned "Mrs Rubina Hendley" on a foundation that is non-existent. Meanwhile, you, as a town, have not even bothered to even ask the most fundamental question of your officials involved in sending out these letters, even after we alerted you, namely, what specifically is the support for the criminal citation, demolition orders and reports of wrong -doing being stated as fact? We reached a point last November, not just of extreme mental and physical exhaustion, but also of realizing that the civility and composure we had maintained up to that point in our Page 2 of 18 interaction with your officials - despite encountering all manner of unrelenting humiliations, degradations and other ignominies at their hands - was an absolute waste of our time. It is an effort for us to do so in this letter, since our only impression of the environment in your town is one in which this kind of misconduct is all in a day's work — tolerated and allowed to flourish. Our rights have not just been trampled over, but removed entirely and we find ourselves at the mercy of a town and its officials who are exercising not jurisdiction but abuse of power. Overall, the administration of this subdivision by your town has been an utter shambles and there are homeowners with properties with significant violations of local and state regulations through no fault of their own - just as In our case. These are not due to isolated examples of an honest mistake or two by your officials, but wholesale abrogation of their responsibilities. [An attorney for one of the other homeowners reported ofhis own volition to Rubina that he was not just angry with the builder/developer for the violations his clients' house was left with, but with your town for having "allowed" them.] But the main difference is that they are living in their homes, whilst we are not and, onlyin the case of Willis and Rubina Hendley, does the town of North Andover get on its high horse and lectures and blames us for these violations occurring, when they were committed by the developer, our former builder and other contractors under the full oversight of your respective officials. It is noteworthy, that we were the ones to bring many to your attention in the first place! Thus, it has been the case that, when these violations committed by others and left uncorrected by them causes us difficulties, we could be assured that your town would suddenly become conscious of every t and every i needing to be punctuated by Willis and Rubina Hendley and, for good measure, throw in a list of regulations at us that exist only in thin air. Indeed, as we have learnt to our cost, impartiality has been virtually an unknown entity in your town in many of its dealings with us. Our interactions with public officials have revealed widespread steadfast support of, and an obsequious manner of regarding the developer and contractors in this subdivision — a concern echoed to us by other residents in North Andover. Even more troubling, since your town has a habit of dismissing anything we say or report, is the fact that the public record supports instances of your town allowing the developer and other contractors to circumvent regulations. We believe one of the reasons for the antagonism towards us is that we have disrupted and exposed this status quo in North Andover and we have even been foolhardy to think it reasonable to ask your town for accountability, let alone principled conduct as the norm. Of the numerous serious abuses of the public trust by your town, we consider the situation within the Board of Health under your Health Director, Ms Sandra Starr, to be so unpalatable for the public welfare that we had no hesitation in filing a complaint with DEP. We do not consider there is anything remotely reasonable about having to deal with an official, who has concealed deception by the septic installer responsible for the septic installation at our property (see part two of our DEP complaint), has the most rude and dismissive mannerisms we have ever experienced with any public official and whose oversight of the septic installations at our property and at others within this subdivision is replete with dereliction of duty and demonstrable lack of competence. Together with the hateful and harmful way both Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse have treated us, we will never be Page 3of18 /Wow_ OY/ assured of any fair treatment from either of these officials. At a minimum, we believed strongly that Ms Starr's serious professional misconduct needed to be reported at state level whether or not any censure or other action occurs. It goes without saying that in light of our experiences with your town it would have been an exercise in futility for us to expect any move by your town to address Ms Starr's conduct and administrative neglect, especially since we have been made aware of numerous complaints about Ms Starr that you as a town appear not to have adequately addressed, with very real grievances and difficulties being experienced by homeowners and contractors alike, aside from the ones who happen to be in her favor. We have, thus, been prevented from occupying our home -to -be, not because we have done anything wrong, but as a result of a series of what can only be described as the most vindictive, often retaliatory, acts and decisions hurled at us and time and time again by certain of these officials. This is the form they have taken - "tailored" specifically for us — and a blatant assault on our liberty to be able to live in and enjoy our home free of unnecessary constraints and restrictions: • utterly bogus conditions for us to comply with (always conveniently verbal); • other conditions that are both vague and contradictory (also conveniently verbal); • decisions due to malicious interpretation of regulations (also conveniently verbal); • decisions that have impeded our ability to seek competitive bids free of restrictive trade practices; • decisions based on incorrect or lack of understanding of regulations. In a personal meeting we had with Ms Rosemary Smedilie on November 22, 2002, we informed her of the stress we had needlessly been placed under and our deteriorating mental and physical well-being and we were led to believe that the Town Manager would call us. We were so looking forward to finally having an end to the surreal nightmare created for us. Instead of the direct personal contact with us we were expecting and an offer to the effect of `let's get you into the house for you to enjoy Christmas', we received a letter from his office dated January 8, 2003, that is quite frankly an insult to anyone's intelligence, in that it consists of obfuscations, sidestepping, lame excuses and absurd and far-fetched reasoning in an attempt to justify blatant misconduct and outright negligence; essentially condoning it. It also displays an inappropriately woeful ignorance of even your own town's regulations, let alone state and federal regulations, rights and protections. Neither are we amused by its tone of condescension in the `solutions' proposed and the implication that we do not follow regulations. We have had enough aspersions cast on our good name without this further denigration of our character. Additionally, since the public record for this subdivision supports the fact that you, as a town, are in the proverbial glass house, it is more than disingenuous for your town to attempt to adopt such a sanctimonious stance. This sort of response has not only exposed your town's callous indifference to our situation, but could hardly, to put it mildly, be considered salutary - it has helped us understand how the officials concerned are able to hold themselves above the law and behave with impunity whenever and in whatever manner they choose to with us. The actions of your officials, sanctioned at Town Manager level, have led to months of unjustifiable delay and expense to us. The mental anguish and suffering we have been caused has had deleterious effects on our health, with both of us dealing with acute depression and countless sleepless nights in addition to total upheaval in our personal, family, financial and working lives. Our son and Page 4 of 18 l� i respective parents (Willis' mother died after a period of illness during the merry-go-round we were put on by your Fire Inspector) have not been spared distress either. Tried as we did, to shield our beloved ones from any knowledge of the ill -will we were being subjected to, it was impossible. It is painful for us to see how our own families are so badly affected by the harm and hurt your officials have and are causing us. These officials would never have contemplated, let alone dared, to engage in the antics they have so freely and maliciously done with us on any one of you. Below in numbered form is a continuation of our account, summarizing what were actually much more tortured and convoluted happenings, of how we have been treated: 1. Fire Inspector: In the Town Manager's January 8 letter to us: "You state that you have been trying to receive a final sign -off on the interior sprinkler system from the fire inspector since mid-August. Per regulations, the fire inspector is waiting for a set of prints and calculations for the sprinkler system before granting final approval. Approximately a year ago, he conducted a flow test on the system but still required the appropriate paperwork before final approval. The burden to produce the required paperwork is on the installer through the property owners. In order to assist in expediting this issue, Lieutenant Melnikas, in lieu of the required paperwork is willing to conduct a "walk-through" in order to visually examine the sprinkler system. If all appears proper to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, Lieutenant Melnikas will provide the final sign -off on the interior sprinkler system. Please contact his office at 978-688-9530 to schedule a mutually convenient time." So, your Fire Inspector has finally agreed to perform a visual walk-through inspection at our property, a decision he was able to make INSTANTANEOUSLY at the seven other properties in this subdivision that were in the SAME circumstances as ours, but one that took him FIVE MONTHS to make in the case of our property and that, too, only after we complained. You see, in our November 22 letter we suspended describing our ordeal at the hands of your Fire Inspector with the statement: "....we suggested to your fire inspector to use the blueprints for Lot 7 (#132) because this property has an almost identical interior layout to ours." We will tell you why your Fire Inspector could not do this, since he appears to have neglected to mention it himself. In Rubina's October 23, 2002 phone call to your Fire Inspector, she asked for a copy of the blueprints for Lot 7 and was informed by him that he had "only received the sprinkler plans for Lots 6 and 8". More correctly, would have been to state that he did not bother ensuring the others were submitted. Your Town Manager's explanation "per regulations, the fire inspector is waiting for a set of prints and calculations before granting final approval" is a weak attempt to validate your Fire Inspector's failings in the following regards: Page 5of18 1. Your Fire Inspector did not bother to get the sprinkler plans and calculations for a total of 8 out of the 10 new -construction properties in this subdivison and then to check BEFORE work on installation even commenced if the coverage depicted in these plans was adequate, as was his required duty for safety reasons per your regulations; 2. Despite the requirement, per your regulations, that plans and calculations be submitted BEFORE the granting of a Building Permit, every one of the 8 out of 10 properties without plans had the Building Permits issued anyway; 3. Then, the entire sprinkler installation was allowed to proceed to completion at a118 properties without any plans and calculations and at this point, in our case only, it suddenly became important to have a these on file after all the work was completed - a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, if ever there was one. For the record, your Fire Inspector actually came to our property on August 9, 2002, when Rubina was present, for the purpose of our receiving our final sign -off from him for the sprinklers and smoke detectors. He left without giving us any sign -off and, as he was leaving, Rubina asked why. Your Fire Inspector informed Rubina that the plumber needed to do a flow test first and when Rubina informed him that this had already been done the previous year, your Fire Inspector then said he would need to first check at his office to see what Rubina stated was true. He informed Rubina that he needed a couple of days to double-check and if the flow test had indeed been performed, then Rubina could bring our Building Permit to his office and he would sign it. Rubina spoke to him a couple of days later and, from that point on for a period of three weeks, not only did your Fire Inspector refuse to issue the sign -off he had promised, but also went back and forth with her for what he wanted from us for this final sign -off. After this dilly-dallying, the `version' your Fire Inspector eventually settled on for what he was expecting us to comply with was this: that our plumber re -do a flow test for him because it had been done "all that time ago" and for us to provide sprinkler blueprints for the installation. Yet, despite the fact that it was a total impossibility for us to provide these plans and that your Fire Inspector was fully aware ofthis (and our November 22 letter explains we could not comply with your Fire Inspector's demand because we informed him that we had been informed that the company issuing these had since gone out of business), your Fire Inspector remained fixated on us providing these plans and never once suggested, even though Willis suggested it on two occasions in phone calls to your Fire Inspector, that he do a walk-through with a visual inspection — which is what he could and should have done the time ofhis original August 9 walk-through at ourproperty. Instead, for a total of over three months, Rubina ended up speaking regularly with your Fire Inspector regarding finalizing our sign -off. Each time Rubina mentioned how unhappy our plumber was at re -doing the test now that carpets had been installed, the fact he had already satisfactorily performed this test before and also the impossibility of obtaining blueprints for the sprinklers. Each time your Fire Inspector remained intransigent. In the last two conversations Rubina had with him, she pleaded "please, Lieutenant Melnikas, let us have a sign -off; it has been over three months", he responded each time with "you know what you have to do, get your plumber to make an appointment with me to do that flow test again" followed by the same "then we'll see", said in a flippant and almost mocking tone. Page 6 of 18 Rubina refused to have any more contact with your Fire Inspector after our plumber personally stopped by (first on a Monday, when he learnt the Inspector does not work, and then again the next day) to talk to your Fire Inspector about his unhappiness with doing yet another flow test with the nice carpets we had had installed. Our plumber then reported back to us that your Fire Inspector had told him that there was no reason for a flow test after all, stating "I didn't realize you were the same plumber", but that we the homeowners still needed to provide plans. Clearly, your Fire Inspector's "then we'll see" to Rubina actually translated as `then we'll see you get the run-around for longer'. Thus, for months your Fire Inspector had repeatedly stressed to Rubina that our plumber needed to perform the flow test again because it had been done by our plumber "all that time ago", now changes his story to not needing one after all because our plumber is the "same" person, but remains steadfast in our need to provide him with blueprints, all the while Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 do not and yet the homeowners of these properties have occupancy. 2. Gas Inspector: The explanation offered in your Town Manager's letter for the run-around we suffered at your Gas Inspector's hands can be similarly dissected by us, as with the above scenario, and shows, once again, how supposed rules and regulations were applied only to us and were also distorted in their application. Yet again, the response from the Town Manager fails to directly address or explain the actual issues we raised in our November 22 letter. 3. Electrical Inspector: Moments after Willis picked up a Permit in his name to complete the finish electrical work at our property, Rubina received a phone from our former builder's electrician. This contractor proceeded, in vehement fashion, to berate (a stupified) Rubina for what he stated were our criticisms of him and his work at our property. Rubina was totally shaken by his claims. It transpires that your Electrical Inspector had made a phone call to this contractor soon after Willis had obtained our permit and (most unprofessionally) felt it appropriate to indulge in `gossip' about our decision for completing the finish electrical work ourselves at our property - our complete right to do so under the regulations. 4. Ms Julie Parrino, Conservation Administrator: For reasons we could not fathom during Spring 2002 (but which explained themselves in due course), our landscape contractor and we were being subject to constant meddling and unpleasant needling by the developer's site contractor/septic installer Mr William Sawyer during a landscaping project at our property that had started on April 5. (This was actually a continuation of the same pattern of behavior that had begun a few weeks before we became legal owners in May 2001.] Suffice to say, we were not impressed with the way this contractor could run to your officials with all kinds of tales about us and rely on their full cooperation in joining in with, not just the harassing of us, but also with hurling at us all kinds of other accusations at us that emanated from him as fact. In frustration at the daily nonsense our landscaper and we were being subjected to by your officials, on both our behalves, Rubina paid a visit to Mr Tim Willet and Conservation. Regarding the visit to the Page 7 of 18 latter department, Rubina spoke to both Ms Parrino and her assistant Alison about our landscaping project, mentioning we were perplexed about Mr Sawyer's reason for complaining to the town about us. Ms Parrino told Rubina she would be on our property the following day, to which demand Rubina said "you will give me the courtesy of doing so when I am there" and asked Ms Parrino for an appointment time. However, Ms Parrino would not give one and told Rubina to speak with Mary, the Conservation secretary, for the actual time of her proposed visit. Mary, in turn, told Rubina that she could not set up an appointment without speaking to Ms Parrino (!). So, Rubina left and phoned Mary again several times that day to find out the time Ms Parrino had arranged or alternatively to speak to Ms Parrino directly. Each time Mary informed Rubina that Ms Parrino was too busy to talk to her, that Ms Parrino knew about letting Rubina know and that Ms Parrino wished to have Rubina's cell phone number. The next morning Rubina went to our property just before 8am and once again phoned Mary several times for the time of Ms Parrino's arrival, since Rubina could not spend all day outside wondering and waiting. Each time Mary assured Rubina that Ms Parrino knew she needed to give Rubina an appointment time and that Ms Parrino would be contacting her. After over fours hours of waiting, Rubina phoned Mary to tell her that Ms Parrino still had not been in touch, that Rubina was thirsty and hungry from waiting in the heat and would return within 20 minutes after picking up refreshments just down the road. In the short time while Rubina was away, Ms Parrino arrived, having never contacted Rubina and proceeded to wander round our property with Mr Sawyer and to impose a stop order to our landscaping work in part of our detention basin. The subsequent leveling of Ms Parrino's DEP criminal citation against Rubina was made just hours after Rubina had a lengthy cell phone conversation with Ms Parrino soon after Ms Parrino's intrusion onto our property, in which Rubina informed Ms Parrino that she "expected more professionalism" from her. Rubina informed Ms Parrino that she did not "think it was right to ignore me every time I tried to make an appointment". Ms Parrino then told (an incredulous) Rubina that "you have altered grades within the detention basin" and that she wanted us to "have a survey done", further claiming that our detention basin had already been surveyed as part of the overall certification procedures the developer needed to comply with (when in fact this was a false statement - see our DEP complaint). Rubina then asked Ms Parrino to explain specifically what she meant by "we had altered grades", to which Ms Parrino only reiterated her demand that she wanted us to do a survey. Getting nowhere with Ms Parrino's stubborn refusal to consider our side of the story, Rubina then said "since you have helped yourself onto our property, did you see any grades being altered in the detention basin ?" To this, Ms Parrino admitted she had not. Rubina then informed Ms Parrino that if she wished to listen to "gossip and insinuations about us from Mr Sawyer", that Ms Parrino was "free to do so on the street" and "not while roaming around our property, without our permission, in our absence, in the company of this site contractor who had no authorization to be there either". During this conversation, Ms Parrino - obviously unmoved by Rubina's consternation at having trespassed on our property and slandered our good name by hurling spurious accusations at us as fact - demanded again that we arrange for a survey to ostensibly disprove (or presumably prove) the allegation made by the site contractor that grades within our detention basin had been altered. When Rubina protested this requirement, Ms Parrino continued in the same specious vein and informed Rubina that, because Rubina was "not an engineer", Ms Parrinio did not consider her qualified. Rubina pointed out that neither Ms Parrino nor Mr Sawyer Page 8 of 18 f � U were surveyors and yet she was not asking Mr Sawyer to prove his allegation to be true. Ms Parrino again demanded we conduct a survey of the detention basin to prove to her that grades had not been altered and stated if we did not do this we would notget a fznal sign-offfrom her. Ms Parrino also went on to verbally impose a series of conditions on the use of the rear of our property within the 100' wetland buffer zone (one of only two in this entire subdivision that are well outside this zone, including the majority of the detention basin), that were so ludicrous and restrictive that we practically were expected to ask her permission before even touching a blade of grass. Our follow-up letter to DEP includes some other details, the not insignificant ones being that Ms Parrino had a lengthy discussion with both of us prior to mailing out her criminal citation of Rubina alone, and of your own Conservation Commission's wanton disregard for its responsibilities in ensuring the developer complied with DEP-mandated requirements. The expense and delay we were thus subjected to by Ms Parrino's demands before she would give us a sign -off were a complete violation, from beginning to end, of all the rights and protections we are afforded under the law. Little did we know at that time that Ms Parrino was just a warm-up for even uglier travails in your officials' hands. 5. Building Inspector: In July 2002, your Building Inspector, Mr Michael McGuire, informed Rubina that he would not be prepared to conduct the final walk-through inspection leading to an occupancy permit for our above home -to -be. Mr McGuire indicated that he was offended by a complaint Rubina made against him regarding the manner in which he dealt with concerns we had about building code violations by our former builder that were not being addressed while the latter was the legal owner of this property. Since Mr McGuire gave no other option to Rubina after having made this statement, Rubina naturally asked him what we were supposed to do. At this point, Mr McGuire informed Rubina that she could ask the Electrical Inspector to perform this, stating that he also had building inspection experience, or to ask the Building Commissioner, Mr Robert Nicetta. In a subsequent conversation with the secretary for the Building Department, Jeanine, for help with how we were to set up these appointments, Rubina learnt that Mr Nicetta was rarely available and the Electrical Inspector only worked part-time. When Rubina pointed out that this was somewhat of an inconvenience, Jeanine also made the comment that it was not a "particularly nice thing to do to complain about Mike" and that in light of this he would not be coming to our property. 6. Ms Heidi Griffin, Community Development & Services Director: In August 2002, in a face-to-face meeting, Rubina informed your Director of Community Services Ms Heidi Griffin that Willis had taken a total of six mornings off work to attempt to speak to either Mr LaGrasse or Ms Starr during the public counter hours of 9am to 10am Page 9 of 18 and, on each occasion, neither of these officials were available. On each of those days, Rubina explained that Willis had arrived a few minutes after nine and waited until a few minutes before ten without ever being able to speak to either of them because they had either not arrived or, on two occasions, were too busy to talk with him. Rubina then pointed out that when Willis eventually made phone contact with Ms Starr, he was forced by Ms Starr to make an appointment to see her during counter hours when the appointment system was clearly intended for outside counter hours. After Rubina finished describing Willis's experience, Ms Griffin said that both Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse were required to attend to counter hours and asked if Rubina was certain of this. Rubina assured her that Willis had lost six mornings off work by no-one from Board of Health being present during counter hours. Rubina also mentioned the times she too had been affected by the absences at counter hours at your BOH. A few days later, when Rubina asked to speak to Mr LaGrasse, Ms Griffin was on hand and, to Rubina's complete surprise, admonished her by stating that "you spent an hour with him yesterday". When Rubina attempted to explain her side of the story (too tedious, North Andover, to go into the details here), Ms Griffin retorted with "it's true, I saw it", which made Rubina decide she was not going to bother with trying to overcome such an argumentative stance. Ms Griffin's attitude stunned Rubina so much that she did not mention an unpleasant experience she had recently had with Ms Starr at the counter when Rubina asked to speak to her, at which time Ms Starr remained totally mute, refused to say anything, instead untaped a piece of paper from the counter, walked away with it, brought back what appeared to be a photocopy of this paper, pointed rudely to the statement on it that said "other times by appointment only", threw the photocopy at Rubina, turned her back and walked away. In late November 2002, Willis had a phone conversation with Ms Griffin who brought up the topic of a letter (dated November 12, 2002) she had received from Rubina on our behalf, in which Rubina also asked for a response from Ms Griffin to various concerns we raised - needless to say, we never received any reply. In this letter, Rubina had pointed out various problems we had encountered during our attempts to put our failed septic installation into compliance, including those as a result of a deeded septic grading easement for our use being permanently compromised. Rubina had sent the letter to Ms Griffin (who has a background in Town Planning) as a result of complete frustration at how many errors and problems we had discovered and were suffering the adverse effects of in our attempts to rectify the septic non-compliance issues at our property. Ms Griffin stated to Willis that Rubina's letter was "confusing" and that she did not "know why she sent this to my department". Willis made no comment to Ms Griffin's assessment of Rubina, but here is our a -b -c explanation for Ms Griffin having failed to notice the obvious: • Your officials should not have allowed the violations to occur in the first place; • having occurred, it is your officials' job, not ours', to detect them, but that is what we ended up doing; • having detected them, we were then left to sort out the problems as a result and your officials failed to notify the parties responsible or to offer compassionate help to us. 7. Mr Robert Beshara, Director of Public Works: On May 23, 2002, the site contractor/ septic installer Mr Sawyer accosted both Rubina and our landscaper about the supposed condition of the granite curbing in the street alongside Page 10 of 18 AW10001- 6f our property and accused our landscaper of removing some sort of material from behind the curbing, an accusation hotly denied by our landscaper. At some stage, Rubina also received a visit from Ms Darcy and her father and subdivision developer Mr Thomas Laudani. It is pertinent to point out that at the time we were unaware that your town had given a blanket issuance of a Certificate of Compliance to the developer without checking whether any of the conditions for the correct installation of the roadway had been met by the contractors working for the developer. Within a couple of hours of this - yet another of Mr Sawyer's accusatory bouts - Rubina returned to our property after a break and noticed someone in a pick-up had parked alongside our property and was staring at it. A few minutes later, this person got out of the vehicle and stood on the street, still staring towards our property. Since this was more than disconcerting, Rubina asked who he was, stating that she was one of the homeowners (Rubina has got used to doing this as she has been mistaken for being a laborer or cleaning person before). He introduced himself as "Bob Beshara from DPW" and immediately said to Rubina "your driveway opening is in the wrong place". Rubina said "what do you mean it's in the wrong place". Mr Beshara pointed to a drain in the street and told Rubina that was where it needed to be instead of where it actually was. He then walked to his vehicle, brought back a piece of paper — an 8"x11" printout of a portion of the approved subdivision plan detailing our lot — pointed to a drain location depicted on it and then to the drain on the street and said "that's where your opening should start". Rubina asked him how he knew that the drain in the street was put in the location per the approved plan. Mr Beshara said "I measured it". He repeated again that our driveway opening was in the wrong location and pointed to where he claimed it should be. Rubina then informed him "if we put it there, we will hit the side of the house", assuming this was evident to Mr Beshara for vehicle entry into what is a side -entrance garage. Rubina than pointed to the house across the road and said "see how that driveway is offset from the side of the house, just like the way ours is". Rubina pointed to the plan showing the same relationship of our driveway to the house and told Mr Beshara that if he was claiming that the driveway opening needed to start at this street drain then "it's obvious that our house was put in the wrong location". Mr Beshara ignored Rubina's observation and said again that our driveway opening was in the wrong place and that we could not have it where it was. Rubina pointed out that it had been there ever since we took over the house from our builder and asked "shouldn't you be talking to the developer? - tell him to sort it out since it's at street level and nothing to do with us". [You see, Rubins had some idea about the regulation that states "It shall be the developer's responsibility to assure the proper placement of the driveways regardless of whether individual lots are sold"] At this point Mr Beshara revealed the real reason for his sudden `interest' in the location of our driveway opening — by the way, that no-one in your town was interested in all the time our former builder was the owner - because he retorted with "well, Mr Sawyer said you told him to put it there". Rubina, taken aback at Mr Sawyer's appearance in the conversation, replied "if you must know I did nothing of the sort. This was something we got together with our builder about and this is the location we all decided on because it is the only place for it. Perhaps my builder told Mr Sawyer". To this Mr Beshara retorted with a very curt "I can't get into he -said she -said". So, your official Mr Beshara can report Mr Sawyer's Page 11 of 18 statement as being fact and if Rubina attempted to give our side of the story, it turns into "can't get into he -said she -said". Mr Beshara continued in this vein about our driveway opening being "in the wrong place" and also added that the driveway asphalt could not impinge on the town easement at street level either. Rubina pointed to the plan that showed otherwise, but Mr Beshara insisted no part of the easement could have asphalt on it. Rubina then pointed out that our driveway at street level would then be a very narrow strip barely one car wide and that, together with its peculiarly -shaped and very acutely -angled approach, would not be safe to use. She asked if Mr Beshara felt it reasonable that our house would then have the only driveway in the street looking "both silly and practically unusable". Mr Beshara stayed adamant, constantly reformatting his angle of attack each time Rubina came up with an intelligent and commonsense response. Mr Beshara finally browbeat Rubina into believing we could not leave our driveway entrance in the location where it was. Mr Beshara told her we would have to apply to Planning for permission to have the driveway opening and location where it currently was, but unless Planning approved the existing location, we would have to move it to where he said. When Rubina asked him how this approval process was done, he explained that we would have to place our application on the agenda for the next meeting and present our case and went on to make a big production of a chance it might be denied. Then the topic switched and Mr Beshara told Rubina that she needed to remove a boulder wall, a couple of trees and our sprinkler system from what he described as the town access easement. Having barraged Rubina for over half -an -hour about the driveway opening, he then proceeded to barrage her for another half -an -hour about these alleged impediments, also bringing up the claim that our landscaper had "badly damaged the street curbing". Regarding the latter, apart from some minor popping -out of cement filler between the curbing sections, neither of us could ever detect anything out of the ordinary in the condition of the curbing outside our property compared to the rest of the street. Of course, any attempt on Rubina's part to point this obvious -to -the -eye fact out to Mr Beshara was met with resistance on Mr Beshara's part, because his agenda for pestering Rubina was clearly pre -conceived. The entire experience with Mr Beshara left Rubina drained and shaken because so much of Mr Beshara's way of speaking was with thinly -veiled threats - this was the main reason Willis took a day off work the next day to be at our property just in case Mr Sawyer or Mr Beshara hounded her again. Lo and behold, Mr Beshara turned up again the next day and fortunately for Rubina, relatively soon after he had begun where he had left off the previous day, Willis showed up, which resulted in Mr Beshara's switch to a more modulated approach with Willis present — all white and 6T' of him — but essentially got us feeling as if we were some sort of common criminals with having a driveway opening and trees and sprinkler systems all allegedly "in the wrong place". After spending over forty minutes with us on his mission for the good of the subdivision, Mr Beshara felt it appropriate to send a letter to Rubina ALONE, in which Rubina is referred to in the third person terms that are unequivocally harassing and humiliating towards her in their implications. Mr Beshara's letter purports to show how dutiful he is to send this horrific `discovery' of all these problems Rubina had caused to the town easement to the `unsuspecting' daughter of the developer. The letter also helpfully contained numerous additional `discoveries' Mr Beshara had never mentioned to us and that were as Page 12 of 18 unsubstantiated as his other claims, such as that there was "construction of a driveway" occurring at our property that he claimed was compromising "the Town's ability to provide maintenance and repairs to the drainage system". For the record, it was clearly evident to him that there was no work occurring on construction of a driveway at our property then (or to date) — but no doubt this `observation' helped the developer to receive his bond money back. Presumably desperate to pull as much out of his conjuring hat (he forgot the rabbit) as possible to ensure that only Rubina got blamed for the easement being compromised, Mr Beshara also made sure everyone knew about "curbing" that the irresponsible "Mrs Rubina Hendley" allegedly placed in the town access easement. This "curbing", that is such an alleged impediment to vehicles, consist of 12" long by 5" high blocks of the type available in Home Depot and used for edging flower beds in millions of homes throughout the country. North Andover, is there no limit to the degradations your town officials feel they can put us through? There are so many twisted, exaggerated and sordid claims in Mr Beshara's communication that are based wholly on unsubstantiated claims and outright lies that we are left at a loss for words for the brazen manner in which he can get away with writing these things. The statement in the letter "the driveway opening was adjusted to suit the homeowner" implies that the driveway opening location that was in place was due to unreasonable or flamboyant excesses by us. Not only was this not the case, but it was clearly obvious in any site visit that it was also the only REASONABLE place for it and we had no other option since our builder had constructed our house in the wronglocation (confirmed by the as - built on file at the time) and also at the wrong elevation. Exactly the same type of deviation in location and elevation that occurs at other houses in this subdivision — for example, the property adjacent to ours has a driveway in a significantly different location and elevation to the approved plans so as to permanently compromise our deeded septic grading easement and also cut across our lot line — but of course this is no concern to either your town or Mr Beshara. It is noteworthy that in his letter, Mr Beshara refers to a "15' width in the easement to allow access to maintenance and construction vehicles". The original width of this part of the easement per the approved plans was 20' total and the SOLE reason Mr Beshara has reduced it to 15' total (10' instead of the approved 15' on our side of the property line and 5' on the adjacent homeowners side of the property line) is because he was fully aware that our builder had positioned our house much closer into the easement side of our property than the approved plans depicted and that he actually knew this was reason for the easement being compromised. Another degradation in this letter was the reference to a May 29 meeting at our property between the developer's daughter Ms Darcy, Mr Beshara and Mr Sawyer for which we were notpresentnor we knewnothing about and this letter exposes how these individuals thought they had a right to impose conditions on how we could use our property. Worst still, Mr Beshara wrote: "Requiring the driveway to be built according to plan would require the homeowner to remove a substantial wall and stairway which would serve no purpose". Page 13 of 18 This statement is an example of PURE UNADULTERATED HARASSMENT that was MALICIOUSLY MADE. Mr Beshara has a PE qualification — he knew exactly what the effect of that horrific, unsubstantiated, threat to destroy our property was all about. A few days after receiving this communication, Rubina phoned Mr Beshara and informed him that since he was "so concerned" about sprinkler systems impinging on town easements, did he realize there was a sprinkler system and heads within the town easement at the property next door. Mr Beshara replied, "Is there? Is there? I'll go and knock on their door and tell them to remove it." Rubina asked when he would do this and Mr Beshara replied "this afternoon". A few days later, Rubina phoned again to enquire about Mr Beshara's visit and this is what he came out with "on second thoughts, you can leave your sprinkler system in place". There are also recently -planted trees on the adjacent property that also appear to impinge on the access easement — but your town is not going to be interested in those because they do not form part of the need to use "Mrs Rubina Hendley" to deflect attention away from violations committed by others. 8. Ms Sandra Starr and Mr Brian La Grasse, Board of Health: The entire circumstances behind the septic installation failure at ourpropgm that occurred under the full oversight of your Health Director Ms Sandra Starr reveal administrative failings on a scale that is staggering and and ofserious professional misconduct by both contractors and officials alike On Thursday November 21, 2002, Mr LaGrasse, delivered a verbal cease and desist order at our property to stop work being continued by our contractors who were in the process of preparing to build a wall alongside an existing septic installation that had been originally installed to completion in November 2000, under the aegis ofMs Starr, but which, in fact, significantly failed to meet the minimum requirements of Title 5 of the state environmental code with regard to downhill slope setback requirements for the soil absorption system because of significant deviations in elevations and locations of permanent structures at the adjacent occupied property compared to the approved plan. [Deviations from approved plans at the adjacent property and their subsequent adverse effect on ours is relevant to consider since the public record clearly shows this entire subdivision as being an engineered site with complex interaction of the location and elevation of structures and other elements within and between each lot. Even though Ms Starr had information from the public record to support the fact that site conditions deviated significantly from those in the approved septic design plan MONTHS before Mr Sawyer started work - thereby making this original plan for our property invalid for use by our former builder and Mr Sawyer and that any septic installation using this plan should never be allowed to proceed - nevertheless, fizll installation was allowed using this same plan, with permit issued to Mr Sawyer and periodic inspections performed by Ms Starr.] IT IS AN IDISPUTABLE FACT THAT TITLE 5 HAS IN-BUILT ADMINISTRATIVE SAFEGUARDS TO HAVE PREVENTED THE WRONG DESIGN FROM EVER HAVE BEEN USED FOR A SEPTIC INSTALLATION. Page 14 of 18 Through our own investigation and efforts, we made the painful discovery of significant Title 5 failure of the septic installation at our property, which also included identifying significant administrative errors throughout this subdivision made by your various officials and numerous examples of significant violations of state and local regulations that had been allowed by them for one reason or another (refer to our complaint lodged with DEP for examples of these). The wall construction work that was required around the existing septic installation at our property was not part of the original design and its purpose was to act as mitigation of sewage breakout and meeting downhill slope setback requirements for Title 5 minimum requirements. Compounding the headaches we have incurred as a result of mistakes made by your officials concerned, the wall was necessary because we were prevented from using a deeded septic grading easement for our property on the adjacent property because your officials also wrongly allowed a structure (a driveway) to be placed on it at the wrong elevation whose location could not be changed either. Thus, instead of being able to add soil to solve the Tide 5 failures at our property, we had the considerable extra expense of needing a wall built. The cease-and-desist order was one of the most vindictive decisions in a whole slew to which we have been subjected by your officials connected with the building process all the while we have tried to seek occupancy for a home we have labored hard for. It TOTALLY UNNECESSARILY prevented our being able to move into our home for the 2002 holidays, particularly as we had suffered enormously* as a result of the serious administrative mistakes at the hands of Ms Starr and had also ended up personallyidentifying and sorting out these in order to submit a revision to the original approved septic design plan used for the installation at our property. [* We went thorough weeks' long mental shock and agonies believing Ms Starr's decision that we had no other option but to remove the ENTIRE existing septic installation and replace it with a new one, because she had failed to ensure that the most fundamental and vital Title 5 requirement of deeded septic grading easement needing to be depicted on the original septic design plan. It was entirely due to vigilance on our part and the decision we made to study Title 5 for ourselves that we were spared this removal and replacement at a huge cost to us.] We are as much the victims of the negligence of your Health Director and associated contractors with regard to our septic installation as are the equally innocent homeowners living in a property in this subdivision discharging sewage and household waste for the last three years to a septic system that is in technical violation of Title 5. What is likely to happen at the point these homeowners might try to sell their property? Discover how the town had allowed contractors, perhaps long gone, to leave them with this impediment to selling their property. We were also present at the time of Mr LaGrasse's visit and the cease and desist order came as a total shock and surprise to us and we expressed as much to Mr LaGrasse. Mr La Grasse went on to inform us that we were performing work allegedly in violation of an administrative condition in which: Page 15 of 18 • a licensed septic installer take out a permit for our wall installation work and for a minor repair to the end of a plastic septic pipe damaged during tree planting preparation work by our landscaper; • then for this installer to stand around the whole time the wall work was being done; • then for this installer to agree to certify the entire septic installation (original and new). Mr La Grasse informed us that unless we complied with these conditions, all work on building the wall would have to cease. We asked Mr LaGrasse to cite specifically where the requirements we were expected to comply with were mentioned in the regulations for the circumstances we were under. At this point Mr LaGrasse did not answer our question, but instead informed us, with a very broad grin across his face, "that's Steve Ericsen's job and he should have known better than to let you go ahead with this". We pleaded with Mr LaGrasse to be allowed to complete the work because we had a miniscule window of opportunity left before winter conditions made work outside impossible for the kind of work we needed to do. Our plight clearly satisfied the spiteful behaviour that we have time and time again been subjected to with Mr LaGrasse. As he walked away from delivering his cease-and-desist order, he threw his head back laughing and as he got in his car and drove away he carried on laughing. This was also witnessed by both our contractors, whose disbelief at Mr LaGrasse's conduct mirrored ours. Mr LaGrasse's notification of a cease and desist order at this time of the year, within the context of the entire circumstances behind the septic installation issues at our property as well as the manner in which your officials had treated us to date, effectively ended all hope for us to be able to occupy our home -to -be for the late 2002 holidays and meant we would have the massive expense of an empty, but otherwise habitable home, to support until the weather broke in the late spring/early summer of 2003. The requirement we were given to fulfill by Ms Starr of our needing another septic installer taking over the responsibility for installation of the original septic installation at our property is also in complete contradiction to the statement she made to our septic designer, Mr Steven Ericsen, in September 2002, in which Ms Starr would act as administrative sign -off for the existing septic installation (in light of Mr Sawyer's refusal to do so for our original installation) and Mr Ericsen would act as the certified surveyor as the administrative sign -off for the wall construction. Not just content with shielding the original septic installer from deception involved in our septic installation, Ms Starr has backtracked on the procedure she outlined to Mr Ericsen. In the days after the cease-and-desist notification was given, we both spoke to numerous officials and also spent running around frantically trying to find a way to comply with yet another set of `verbal' conditions that defied commonsense as well as our understanding of the regulations (of course, no support along those lines was ever given us, despite the fact time and time again — including our written request to Ms Starr originally made in August 2002 that has been totally ignored to date — we asked for these in writing). Page 16 of 18 The response from your Town Manager has not helped because its reference to administrative requirements he claims we should meet contradict the ones repeated time and again to us by Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse. Further, in his letter, your Town Manager states: "Your filing a complaint with the Department of Environmental Protection against the Health Department staff is within your discretion. However, it is uncertain whether the Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction in the matter. If you believe that the actions of the Health Department staff were unwarranted or not in compliance with regulations, you bring the matter before the Board of Health at their next scheduled meeting. If you wish to do so, please contact Ms Sandra Starr at 978-688-9540 to be placed on the agenda." Needless to say, in light of our entire experience with your officials and with Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse in particular, we find this suggestion to be almost beyond belief In the case of our trying to put our existing septic installation into compliance, Ms Starr has turned what was a straightforward corrective process into a contorted and ugly proceeding with additional problems created for us, entirely due to her's and Mr LaGrasse's own administrative mishandling, negligence and outright hostility towards us and by Ms Starr's shielding of the septic installer's attempts to mislead. Despite your Town Manager's stance, there is absolutely no justification WHATSOVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, that the form your officials' behaviors and decisions have taken to date could be construed as necessary or reasonable for our circumstances. As for the traits outlined in the "Customer Service Follow Up Form", issued by your Community Development & Services Division, these are an excruciating reminder to us that these, the most basic of concepts in public service that should be automatic in their execution for all, have purposefully excluded us. We consider it is disgraceful indictment on your town that your officials have given the `welcome mat' of such nasty associations with our home -to -be and that because of the environment we have encountered that has been so discriminatory, retaliatory and lacking in impartiality towards us we are forced to resort to using our attorney to make sure no more of our rights and liberties are violated. Yours sin rely, Willis A M Hendley Rubina Hendley Page 17 of 18 cc Ms Kathy McKenna, Planning Building Department Ms Julie Parrino, Conservation Mr Hmurciak, DPW Mr Beshara, DPW Mr Tim Willet Ms Sandra Starr, BOH Mr Brian LaGrasse, BOH Ms Heidi Griffin, Community Services Development Lt Melnikas, Fire Inspector Page 18 of 18 iN 102Ae-0t4 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER OFFICE OF TOWN MANAGER 120 MAIN STREET NORTH ANDOVER., MASSACHUSETTS 01845 Mark H. Rees Town Manager Willis and Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley: Ve^1�ac ;6r •N< January 8, 2003 Telephone (978) 688-9510 FAX (978) 688-9556 I am in receipt of your various correspondences listing your concerns regarding 10I/Cricket Lane. After speaking to appropriate staff, I will attempt to respond to your issues. • You claim that Mrs. Hendley has been singled out by Town personnel and that correspondence has been addressed solely to her. In speaking with staff, it appears that a majority of their interactions and conversations over the past few months have been strictly with Mrs. Hendley. A letter sent to Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director, dated November 12, 2002, was signed solely from Mrs. Hendley. However, in response to your concern, staff has been notified that all correspondence regarding this issue will be addressed, in the future, to both of you as joint property owners. You state that you have been trying to receive a final sign -off on the interior sprinkler system from the fire inspector since mid-August. Per regulations, the fire inspector is waiting for a set of prints and calculations for the sprinkler system before granting final approval. Approximately a year ago, he conducted a flow test on the system but still required the appropriate paperwork before final approval. The burden to produce the required documents is on the installer through the property owners. In order to assist in expediting this issue, Lieutenant Melnikas, in lieu of the required paperwork, is willing to conduct a "walk-through" in order to visually examine the sprinkler system. If all appears proper to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, Lieutenant Melnikas will provide the final sign -off on the interior sprinkler system. Please contact his office at 978-688-9530 to schedule a mutually convenient time. Your next concern was in regards to the inspection of the gas appliances. The inspector had asked your plumber the location of the name plate on the gas appliance in order to see if it had an approved testing stamp on it. Your plumber informed the inspector that he could not find the approved stamp. The inspector then asked for you, as the homeowners, to provide literature on the product to research it further. During the interim, the inspector contacted the state regulatory agency, as he did not recognize the manufacture of the gas appliance, in order to see if it had a product approval number which it did not. The inspector was also informed that the state had discovered that this particular manufacturer had not been keeping their approvals current. In the meanwhile, the regulatory agency instructed the inspector to enforce the code until the state decided on what do with this issue. As you indicated in your letter, you called the regulatory agency on more than one occasion to verify that the gas inspector was telling the truth. When the inspector received confirmation from the regulatory agency that he could sign off on your gas inspection upon receipt of proper testing data, he did so. This coincided with Mr. Hendley's visit to the inspector. You applied for and received a Homeowner License Exemption on May 24, 2001. The exemption states in part that the homeowner assumes responsibility for compliance with the State Building Code and other applicable codes, by-laws, rules and regulations. The homeowner also certifies that he/she understands the Town of North Andover Building Department's minimum inspection procedures and requirements and that he/she will comply with said procedures and requirements. Typically, a person/firm engaged in constructing a dwelling must have a construction supervisor's license, unless a homeowner constructing their own dwelling receives a homeowner exemption, which you received. However, this exemption means that the homeowner must abide by the same regulations as a licensed contractor/builder. Staff informs me that the septic system design for your lot was not approved until November 4, 2002 and a Disposal Construction Works permit has not been obtained by a septic installer licensed in North Andover as of the date of this letter. As such, a request for a Certificate of Compliance is premature. It is my understanding that you had a subcontractor that was not licensed in the Town start working on retaining wall (a component of the approved septic design). You began this work without the required Disposal Construction Works permit. The health inspector went to the site and informed you that, since you did not have the proper permit to do the work, all construction activity must stop immediately. Furthermore, the inspector briefed you to have a licensed installer obtain the proper permit. This type of septic system design is a common occurrence in North Andover and numerous installers perform this type of work on a routine basis. The Health Department is prepared to assist you in accomplishing this task. They will be forwarding to you,a list of properly licensed installers. Although the season for this type of work to be accomplished has past, the Health Department will assist you and your installer in obtaining a variance to complete the project. Your filing a complaint with the Department of Environmental Protection against the Health Department staff is within your discretion. However it is uncertain whether the Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction in the matter. If you believe that the actions of i � + the Health Department staff were unwarranted or not in compliance with regulations, you may bring the matter before the Board of Health at their next scheduled meeting. If you wish to do so, please contact Ms. Sandra Starr at 978-688-9540 to be placed on the agenda. I trust I have responded to all of your questions and/or issues. I realize that some of my responses will not assure you. However, it is imperative that all responsibilities and inspections conducted by Town of North Andover personnel fully comply with all rules and regulations. Staffs from the various Town departments are prepared to assist you to complete your project. If I can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me. Y, Mark H. Rees Town Manager cc., Chief William Dolan, Fire Department Ms. Heidi Griffin, Community Development & Services Division Mr. Robert Nicetta, Building Department Ms. Sandra Starr, Health Department Lieutenant Andrew Melnikas, Fire Department Board of Selectmen SENT BY: ; `�,- 3- 3 ; 2:38PM ; M.C. & T. (BOSTPN,y ;# 2/ 2 TELEPHONE c617) 227•B010 TFi.£COPiEA (61 227-2630 AL�. w &Q-1-40 January 3, 2003 VIA FACSTMTT.i+, (978) 688-9542 Ms. Sandra Starr, t-lealth Director TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER BOARD OF HEALTH 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01 R45 Re: 101 Cricket Lane / Willis and Rubina Hendley Dear Ms. Starr: '�D 0 I/ I — `« JAN This office represents Willis and Rubina Hendley owners of the property located at 101 Cricket Lane. As you know, the Hendleys are, and have been for many months, attempting to obtain a certificate of compliance for their septic system. T am, sure that you are well aware of the history on this lot. T would like to meet with you to discuss this matter and what needs to he done to enable the Hendleys to get the system approved so they can finally occupy the home they purchased almost three years ago. I will call you to set up this meeting. Very RDV,paa cc: Willis Headley Rubina Hcndley Kevin T. Smith, Csq, MCT/121124.1 Vetstein COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Metropolitan Boston — Northeast Regional Office JANE SWIFT Governor 801,y 00 OF 'dEALT' �µ 7 200 �._L�V�1lUJ_ A Sandra Starr, R.S., Agent Board of Health 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 December 30, 2002 RE: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING A COMPLAINT Walnut Ridge Subdivision, North Andover (17 -Ipswich) Dear Ms. Starr: BOB DURAND Secretary LAUREN A. LISS Commissioner The Department of Environmental Protection has received a complaint regarding Title 5 enforcement as it relates to the Walnut Ridge subdivision in North Andover. The Department has been informed by a property owner within this subdivision that the septic systems located within this subdivision do not comply with the requirements of 310 CMR 15.000, Title 5 of the State Environmental Code. The property owner's allegations are documented in the attachment enclosed. As you are aware, the Department does not like to become involved in the local health and safety issues since that jurisdiction generally is assigned to the local Board of Health. However, since a complaint has been received and involves allegations against a board of health, the Department must investigate the situation further. So as to not duplicate effort and so as to leave the situation within your jurisdiction for the time being, the Department hereby requests that the following information be received by the Department within fourteen (14) days of your receipt of this letter: • the Board of Health's and/or its agent's response to the allegations set forth in the attachment to the complainant's letter; and • a table noting the addresses of all properties within the subdivision, the dates of issuance of the Disposal System Construction Permit, Certificate of Compliance and Occupancy Permits, and reasons for any delays in the issuance of any of these. Please note that additional information may be requested in the future as a result of the Department's review of this information. The Department hopes that this situation can be resolved in a timely fashion that incorporates protection of the public health, safety and the environment. This information is available in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at (617) 574-6872. 205A Lowell St. Wilmington, MA 01887 • Phone (978) 661-7600 • Fax (978) 661-7615 . TTD# (978) 661-7679 0 Printed on Recycled Paper r� Martin Fair '�� Page 2 May 28, 2002 If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Claire A. Golden of my staff at (978) 661-7743. Very truly yours, Madelyn Morris Deputy Regional Director Bureau of Resource Protection MM/CAG/cag \2002complaints\walnutridgesub 1 Certified Mail No. cc: Rubina Hendley, 105 Rolling Ridge Lane, Methuen, MA 01844-2669 COPY Madelyn Morns Deputy Regional Director Bureau of Resource Protection DEP, Northeast Regional Office 205 Lowell Street Wilmington, MA 01887 Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Thursday December 12, 2002 Sent via Certified Mail "00toymp",_17 Re: Request for DEP Investigation of the Town of North Andover Board of Health Failures to Enforce and Implement 310 CMR 15.000, Title 5 of the State Environmental Code Dear Ms Morris. In a recent phone conversation with Mr Steven Corr at DEP Boston, I mentioned that my husband and I had documented evidence from the public record that a Board of Health had repeatedly failed to enforce and implement Title 5 amongst various licensed contractors. As a result, this Board of Health's activities have failed to protect public health, safety, welfare and the environment and innocent homeowners have been left with the burden of sorting out the resultant problems arising from these violations. Mr Corr assured me that DEP has a process for evaluating the performance of local Boards of Health in light of public concerns and he referred me to direct our complaint for your attention, copied to Ms Sharon M Pelosi at DEP Boston. It was a real pleasure to have this interaction with Mr Corr as it was one of the occasions in which a public official understood what I meant about the compassionate component in state law, namely the one that protects public welfare. However, the information I received from Mr Corr was in complete contrast to the information my husband received when he recently spoke with Mr David Ferris at your regional office. Mr Ferris told my husband that our complaint involving North Andover Board of Health needed to be directed at a local level only and further stated that if this Board of Health felt it had any questions that it would itself directly contact regional DEP. Additionally, Mr Ferris denied my husband a request for a meeting to discuss our complaint and present our paperwork with our investigative results. In light of the all the information we have gathered about DEP investigative procedures and enforcement decisions, together with our understanding of the provisions within Policy Enf- 97.003 "Policy On Compliance Incentives For Municipalities", we find the explanation offered us by Mr Ferris to be wholly unsatisfactory and hope that dismissing our concerns in this way is not officially -sanctioned DEP policy. I would like to emphasize that my husband and I can support our assertion that this Board of Health is not only unfit to administer the provisions of Title 5 in its currently -structured state but is also most definitely not capable of self -policing. In my attachment to this letter, I summarize just seven of numerous failures to enforce and implement Title 5 requirements at various new -construction properties within a subdivision in North Andover. This summary is based on a more -detailed documentation from the public record that we have prepared. These failures are so wide-ranging in their scope that they point to one conclusion only: a dysfunctional entity masquerading as the Tide 5 administrative arm of DEP. Our investigation also clearly shows a pattern of "willful blindness", which is defined in Policy Enf-97.003 as: "the deliberate avoidance of learning facts or the failure to acquire specific knowledge when other facts are known that would induce most people to acquire the specific knowledge in question." These failures came to light when we decided, in August, to investigate our own septic system installed to completion in November 2000, whilst our former builder was still owner. Wle were the ones to inform this Board of Health that this system actually significantly failed to comply with property line and/or downhill slope requirements for the soil absorption system. It was particularly discomforting to learn from the public record that site conditions deviated significantly from those on the approved design plan well before installation work started, due to lower elevations at the property line with the adjacent already -occupied property. That reaso.n alone precluded this plan being valid. Nevertheless, installation was allowed to proceed using this same plan all the way to final inspection by this Board of Health in November 2000. To add to our troubles, our efforts to effect compliance and move into our otherwise habitable home have been unnecessarily impeded by also having to deal with large doses of belligerent and unprofessional conduct on the part of the Health Director and Health Inspector in this Board of Health. For all these reasons, we do not regard the activities of North Andover Board of Health as a matter for an internal review at local level. We also expect greater accountability from DEP in light of the fact that two members of the public have uncovered significant failures at the hands of this Board of Health that have caused and will continue to cause material harm to individual homeowners as a result of the worst excesses of licensed contractors being unchecked and remaining uncorrected to date. Additionally, the Town of North Andover itself has failed to adequately address the numerous complaints it receives particularly with regard to its current Health Director and Health Inspector administering the Title 5 process. Between us, my husband and I have managed to gain a reasonably proficient grasp of both the administrative and technical aspects of Title 5 and this is largely because of our background: I have an undergraduate degree in Physiology and Biochemistry, and a graduate degree in Pharmacology; my husband has an undergraduate degree in Cybernetics and Computer Science and works as Director of Engineering in the region. Our analysis of this Board of Health bas been done with the scientific and administrative training we are experienced in. We would both like an appointment to meet with you to discuss our concerns and submit our more detailed documentation of our investigation of this Board of Health's failures. To that effect, I would appreciate a response from you at your earliest convenience and look forward to hearing what actions DEP will instigate to investigate our complaint. Yours sincerely, 'O&YRubina Hen dley , Enc: 2 -Page Attachment summarizing failures by North Andover Board of Health to enforce and implement Title 5 of the state environmental code cc Sharon M Pelosi, Director, Watershed Permitting, DEP Boston North Andover Board of Health: Summary of some Examples of Fiailure to Enforce and Implement 310 CMR 15.000 Tide 5 of the State Environmental Code Within the Walnut Rid ge Subdivision. An engineered site of 10 New -Construction Homes, 9 currently occupied (the last one in Dec 2000), bordered by Vegetated Wetlands, served by detention basins for stormwater management, with numerous properties (house only) located within the 100' lY/etland Buffer Zone. Consequently, space for the locations of various structures (house, driveway, various access and septic easements, septic system, etc) is limited and little tolerance exists for deviation from approved elevations and locations for these structures. The "complexity" of each lot is a matter ofpublic record and there is a complex interaction of these structures within each lot as well as between adjacent lots. Failure #1: Violation of 15.003(3) by Board of Health A regulation in the "Town of North Andover Minimum Requirements For The Subsurface Disposal Of Sanitary Sewage, revised June 1997" that is less stringent than Title 5 mandates. This Board of Health regulation that we detail in our documentation, is virtually the first step in the local Title 5 inspection process that ensures septic installation work does not proceed in the event that site conditions differ from approved design plans with respect to location and elevations of the foundation. The loophole presented in this regulation enabled contractors in this subdivision to deviate from approved elevations (even though there is an overall requirement to comply with approved plans) and resulted in significant problems faced by homeowners - problems we have documented for their negative impact. Failure #2: A property occupied since May 2001 where, according to public record, the top of the distribution box and leach trenches are installed at a minimum of 48" to 54" below finish grade, in violation of 15.221(7) for a maximum of 36" below finish grade to the top of these components. No variance sought. Failure #3: A property occupied since May 2000 where, according to the public record, the downhill slope setback to the soil absorption system is not the 15 feet per 15.211 (1), instead for leach trench #3 is less than 5 feet and for leach trench #2 is less than 10 feet. No variance sought. Failure #4: Failure to ensure that the numerous recorded septic grading easements were depicted on the approved design plans as per 15.220(4)(b) — only 1 out of a total of 9 septic easements (appurtenant to one hropertp in and over another property) was depicted. More significant, was that no septic easements were depicted on the plans showing all the various structures approved by Planning for this subdivision. Because the location of these septic easements was not depicted, neither Board of Health not Planning were able to consider the impact of various structures such as driveways, detention basins, septic systems, etc. Additionally, by omitting these septic easements altogether, at least one extra lot was allowed to be squeezed into the subdivison. This has resulted in the following problems in the field: • the wetlands have possibly been overburdened and the site and individual lots are intolerant of relatively minor deviations from approved plans because space for siting of various structures is limited — problems arising as a result are documented; • various septic easements have been permanently compromised and are unusable due to the siting of structures that cannot be relocated or be subjected to any elevation changes; • at least one septic easement is inappropriately sited, in that it impacts a detention basin; • Board of Health keeps a record of easements on file but appears not to understand the significance of the Title 5 requirement needing septic easements to be depicted on plans irrespective of whether or not they form part of the design requirement for the system depicted. Situation not helped by the concomitant ignorance of this provision by the engineers /designers who submitted these plans and of the engineers reviewing these on behalf of the Board of Health. However, most laypersons (including us) understand the significance of such an omission! Failure #5: Two properties occupied since August 2000 and Sept 2000, respectively, without receiving Certificates of Compliance for the septic installation, in violation of 15.021 (5), but receiving Board of Health sign -off approval on the Building Permit. The reason for no Certificates of Compliance being issued, as stated to us by ;he Health Inspector:, was that certain Title 5 requirements remained unfulfilled and were "minor" in nature — if indeed these are minor then compliance should have been sought before occupancy. Failure #6: Frequent issuance of Disposal System Construction Permits well before Foundation As - Built location and elevation plans were examined, a requirement under local regulations that supplements Title 5 requirements for sufficient inspections both prior to and during septic installation, such as those under 15.020(1) and 15.021(2) and (3). The subsequent approvals of these Foundation As -Built plans by Board of Health after permits were issued was often an academic exercise rather than a true attempt to look for deviations from the approved foundation plans. Any lax approach at this stage is seriously negligent because this is a crucial early inspection stage in the septic installation process — caused numerous problems for homeowners as a result of deviations from approved locations and elevations. Failure #7: The various administrative failures above, that appear to be routine operational practice at this Board of Health, played a large role in allowing a septic installation at our property that according to facts in the public record should never have been allowed to occur in the first place, let alone proceed to cornpledon. This system is it significant violation. of Title 5 requirements with respect to property line and/or downhill slope requirements. Before we, and our own independently -retained engineer, could attempt to effect compliance, we had to both detect and unravel many of the failures listed above. We have documented more extensively the myriad problems left on our doorstep, all as a direct result of this Board of Health's administrative failings. These include loss of a section of a recorded septic easement that is permanently compromised by location of a permanent structure within it, preventing us from its use for meeting setback requirements at the property line for our existing non-compliant system. The dollar costs for dealing with this non-compliant septic installation have already run into the tens of thousands for us. Sandra Starr, Health Director Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Sent via Certified Mail Will:` "Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Friday November 22, 2002 Re: Septic System Installation, Lot 2 (101) Cricket Lane to OF IC TH At�lt`O' '/ BOARD OF HEALTH FNW 2g Dear Ms Starr, In our letter to you dated August 15, we asked "... at your earliest convenience, we would appreciate a letter from your department indicating exactly what is required in order to issue us a Certificate of Compliance for our septic installation.". To date, we have only received verbal information from you regarding all matters related to the septic system non-compliance issues at the above property. Your latest demand involved a verbal cease-and-desist order to the slope retention wall work being performed at our property via a site visit by your inspector, Mr Brian LaGrasse. In subsequent communications, including a phone conversation with Willis, you insisted that our instructions to Mr Daniel Giard, whose name is on your department's list of installers, to obtain a Permit for the repair to the leach trench were not acceptable to you and neither was our using Mr Steven Ericsen, our certified engineer/designer, for certifying the slope retention wall plus barrier installation. You have demanded that we ask an installer to accept liability for both the repair and retention wall plus barrier work and for the installer to obtain a Permit under those conditions. We are unable to find any installer willing to accept this degree of responsibility or liability. More importantly, we are unwilling to partake any longer in this debacle regarding your handling of matters related to the septic installation at our property. We wish to comply with state law. That does not mean concealing the role you have played, whilst our former builder was still the owner of record, in failing to prevent the installation, as per the original approved plans, from proceeding in the first place because existing conditions significantly deviated even before installation work started. That was negligent enough. You then allowed work to proceed as far as final inspection stage in November 2000, once again whilst our former builder was still the owner. We have filed a formal complaint against you and Mr LaGrasse with the Department of Environmental Protection for your mishandling, incompetence and misconduct in all matters related to the non-compliance of the septic installation at our property as well as irregularities and viola 'ons you have allo d at others in this subdivision. Sincerely, . 4" Willis A M Hendley Rubina Hendley cc Heidi Griffin, Director, Community Development and Services Division Mark Rees, Town Manager Rosemary Smedile, Chairman, Board of Selectman Ms Heidi Griffin, Director Community Development and Services Division Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Sent via Certified Mail .111--,\ Aoe Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 Tuesday November 12, 2002 NOV 18 1 Re: Encroachment of septic easement appurtenant to 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision Dear Ms Griffin, My husband, Willis, and I are the owners of record for the above new -construction property that we took over in late May 2001 from our former builder, with a Homeowner License Exemption for its completion prior to receiving occupancy for ourselves and our son. We discovered in September this year that a septic system installed at our property in early November 2000 fails to comply with Title 5 and local regulations regarding setback and/or side -slope requirements for the leach trenches nearest to the adjacent lot line. The only way to bring this existing installation into compliance is with the construction of a slope - retention wall, with the inclusion of an impervious barrier to mitigate sewage breakout, neither of which were originally installed. Our septic designer submitted this wall plus barrier revision to the original approved plans on Monday October 21 and we received notification from him on Friday November 8 that your Board of Health had approved his proposal. At a meeting we had with Mr Rees on Thursday 31 October, one of the concerns we expressed to Mr Rees was that our ability to use a section of our deeded septic grading easement had, effectively, been permanently compromised. At Mr Rees' suggestion, we are making our concerns known before the subdivision is conveyed to the town. The driveway for Lot 3 cuts across our lot line, but much worse is that it also encroaches upon a section of a recorded septic grading easement appurtenant to our lot in and over Lot 3. This property was sited in the wrong location and at a lower elevation compared to the approved plans (refer to enclosed copies of approved and as -built plans of Lot 3) and the driveway that serves it has rendered a section of our easement unusable for the purpose it was deeded to us, namely the right to access, excavate, add fill, etc. Had our septic easement not been compromised, we could meet setback requirements firstly, by building a slope -retention wall plus barrier in the area within our lot beyond the end of the leach trench closest to the lot line and secondly, by adding fill into our easement area to the side of the same leach trench. Should we decide to go ahead and use our deeded easement, not only would a large section of Lot 3's driveway need to be removed, but also, after adding the required fill, the elevation of the replacement driveway in this section would result in a significant raised hump. We cannot, in all sanity, leave our neighbors with this of 1 obstruction. Thus, we have been forced into the position of the considerable extra expense of extending the slope -retention wall plus barrier into this easement area, instead of the much shorter wall length we would have required had we been able to add fill instead within this easement. I would also like to point out that none of the numerous recorded septic grading easements have been depicted on any of the Definitive Plans for this subdivision. A similar situation exists with regard to the absence of septic easements from the various Septic Design Plans, with the exception of one septic easement only (other than ours) having been depicted, namely that for Lot 9. The only easements that have been depicted on these various plans are the access/maintenance easements for the drainage systems and detention basins. This omission has played havoc with and added delay to the efforts Willis and I have been making to seek compliance for our failed septic system. Our septic designer was relying on the veracity of the original approved plans on file, none of which he had prepared, in order to revise them for inclusion of a retaining wall and impervious barrier. In September, he submitted his first proposal for a wall plus barrier within our lot based on the information available from the approved plans, which did not depict any septic easement appurtenant to our lot. This first wall plus barrier proposal was rejected by your BOH because minimum local setback requirements to wall footings could not be met within our lot. It is fortuitous that Willis and I knew about our septic easement in and over Lot 3. Once we pointed it out to our designer and, for the reasons above, further discovered that a section of this easement was rendered unusable, we could still seek compliance by siting a retaining wall within the easement, which is the proposal that subsequently received BOH approval. Meanwhile, it appears that no action has, to date, been taken by the relevant town departments to examine the implications of this omission at other lots. I have just described the material loss to us by due care not being exercised by the builder/developer at Lot 3 with regard to our easement rights. Your Conservation Department, for example, needs to consider the impact of the septic grading easement, appurtenant to Lot 5 in and over Lot 4, which if it were used might impact the detention basin in its vicinity. In the matter of interference with our septic grading easement, Willis and I would be grateful if you would ensure that the appropriate parties are informed and let us know, at your earliest convenience, the process for having our grievances resolved. Sincerely'A. Rubina Hendley Enc: 1. Copy of Final As -built of driveway area at Lot 3. 2. Copy of Approved Definitive Plan showing relevant section of Lot 3 driveway. (The septic easements for copies 1. and 2. drawn in by hand since never depicted.) J. Copy of recorded Septic Easement Plan. 4. Copy of Approved Septic Design Plan for Lot 2, 11-1-02 revision. cc Planning Department Conservation Department (letter only) Board of Health (letter only) Mr Mark Rees, Town Manager (letter only) U Lot & Street Map/ParceQ07 CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL Has plan review fee been paid: YES Plan Approval: Date: app Designer: Conditions: Water Supply: (—~ Town Well Permit: Well Tests: Chemical Bacteria I Bacteria II Plumbing Sign -Off: Comments: Form "U" Approval Date Issued_ Conditions: Final Approval: Well Driller: Date Approved Date Approved Date Approved NO, Permit# Approved by:--ZJ L Plan Date:ZllOIL60,�, Wiring Sign-off.- Form ign-off: Approval to Issue: YES NO By: All Permits Paid? Well Construction Approval? YES NO Septic System Construction Approval? YES NO Certification? YES NO Other? YES NO YES NO Any Variance Needed? YES NO FINAL BOARD OF HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: APPROVED BY: I 7 t SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION CONDITIONS: DWC Permit # Begin Inspection: Excavation Inspection: Needed: Passed: Construction Inspection: Needed: As Built Plan Satisfactory: YES: Approval of Backfill: Date: Final Grading Approval: Date: M Installer: 0 Final Construction Approval: Date: By: Certificate of Compliance: Approval: Date: YES NO Is the installer licensed? YES NO Type of Construction: NEW REPAIR New Construction: Certified Plot Plan Review YES NO Floor Plan Review YES NO Conditions of Approval from Form U YES NO Issuance of DWC permit: YES NO DWC Permit Paid? YES NO DWC Permit # Begin Inspection: Excavation Inspection: Needed: Passed: Construction Inspection: Needed: As Built Plan Satisfactory: YES: Approval of Backfill: Date: Final Grading Approval: Date: M Installer: 0 Final Construction Approval: Date: By: Certificate of Compliance: Approval: Date: YES NO Lot & Street L a 0,elC467— ZA Map/Parcel CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL Has plan review fee been paid: NO Permit_ Plan Approval: Date: c % Approved by.-_� Designer: %�/f-/�',,�/.,�YJ 4 Plan Date:_ Conditions: _ Wate?*Sj�pply- Well Permit: Qo_wn WeII. - Driller: Well Tests: Chemical Date Approved -- Bacteria I - Approved Bacteria H Date— ved Plumbing -Sig V an- - -Wiring Sign -0 Comments: -- Form "U' Approval: Approval to -Issue: YES NO Date Issued By: Conditions: Final Approval: All Permits Paid? YES NO Well Construction Approval? YES Septic System Construction Approval? YES NO Certification? YES NO NO Other YES NO Any Variance Needed? YES NO FLNAL BOARD OF HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: APPROVED BY: SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION - A t Is the installer licensed? NO Type of Construction: v REPAIR New Construction.- _.-Certified Plot Plan Review NO -Floor Plan Review YE NO _ Conditions of Approval from Form U YES NO _Issuance of DWC permit- - YE NO _DWC Permit Paid?YES NO . DWC Permit # - Installer- Ltd_ To Sgu�y p�- Begin_Inspection:_ NO _Excavation Inspection: -Needed: —Passed: _Construction Inspection: Needed: As.Built_Plan Satisfactory: YES: By: - Approval of Backfill: Date- By. 61!�Epi?l ---F inal Grading Approval: Date: By. geo_ Final Construction Approval: Date: By. Certificate of Compliance: Approval: Date: ! NORSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 3 Pondv/ew Place Tyngsboro, Mass. 01879 TEL. 649-9932 TO AJO yrl WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via IL IE U U IE N 00 F U IN �:S� nnl;,T UZZ L XA xx 1A III /o JO• NO - ATTINTIOW NO. ❑ For your use ❑ DESCRIPTION ❑ ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints O Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ the following items: ❑ Specifications COPIES_ For approval DATE NO. ❑ For your use ❑ DESCRIPTION ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 i THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: IQ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 REMARKS ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO SIGNED: Sandra Starr Health Director Town of North Andover Health Dept 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Delivered by hand on Aug 15, 2002 Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Thursday August 15, 2002 TOOK OF NORTH PIDU, BOARD OF HEALTH i LAUG5 2002 #' RE: Certificate of Compliance for septic system at Lot 2, 101 Cricket Lane Dear Ms Starr, We are working towards receiving sign -offs from the various town departments prior to receiving an Occupancy Permit for the above property. We had originally hoped to schedule our final building inspection for the week of August 5. However, during a visit to your department on August 8, we discovered that a memo dated the same day had been filed by your Health Inspector, Mr Brian LaGrasse, advising the Building Inspector to not issue us the Permit as there is no Certificate of Compliance for the septic system at Lot 2. We learnt from Mr LaGrasse that this was as a result of a letter from the septic system installer, Mr William Sawyer of ARCO Excavators Inc, that had been filed with your department on April 22, 2002. It was at our counter visit on August 8 that we learnt for the first time of the claims being made by Mr Sawyer and also of his refusal to sign off on the installation, as he had not disclosed any of these to us either verbally or in writing. The landscape contractor for our project was Mr Michael Arrasmith of Atkinson Tree & Landscape and the company, "Wickson Inc", referred to by Mr Sawyer was a sub -contractor of Mr Arrasmith's. Our landscape contractor has also not at any time mentioned to us the "warnings" Mr Sawyer claims to have made. Our scaled landscape plans showed the locations of the septic leach field and the components up to the septic tank and that no further grading or extra loam was required in this area. Additionally, Merrimack Engineering had staked out lot line markers at our request prior to our landscaping work beginning. We believe that the company "Wickson Inc" also installs septic systems and, therefore, we presume that they are aware of the due care required to be exercised over a septic system installation. Mr Sawyer has claimed in his letter to you that "the lot was sold before I was able to complete the final grading on the septic system". We not only have documentation to show otherwise, but we were also present at the lot while this work was being completed. Y ARCO Excavators began work on the septic installation for Lot 2 in late October 2000. By November 2000 they had completed this work as well as all the remaining site sub -grading Lot 2 required. Our builder also had ARCO Excavators spread the screened topsoil he had ordered over all areas on Lot 2, including the septic system area, for our builder's landscape contractor to do finish landscaping (hydroseeding and planting). However, the latter did not occur and from January 2001 we were involved in negotiations with our former builder for us to take over completion of this property. We asked our builder to have ARCO Excavators complete some extra work on our lot before closing, including spreading an extra layer of topsoil over our lot up to the detention basin, in preparation for us to assume finish landscaping only and driveway installation by our own contractors after closing. Not only had ARCO Excavators, in November 2000, already completed finish grading over our whole lot, including the septic system, they also completed the extras we asked our builder for when they returned in early April 2001, well before the property was sold to us. It has come as a great surprise to us to learn that your department is not signing off on our Building Permit since both septic and site finish grading had been completed by ARCO before we closed. With reference to Mr Sawyer's other allegation that "they have made noticeable grade changes including a stone retaining wall", please refer to the attached letter we received from Ms Julie Parrino dated August 13, 2002, in which she states that "lot development has been completed in substantial conformance to the approved plans", based on an As -Built of Lot 2 dated June 25, 2002, prepared by Diversified Civil Engineering. We have also received Form -U sign -offs from DPW and the Planning Department. As for the "stone retaining wall" referred to by Mr Sawyer, we presume that he means the one located at the opposite side of our property to the septic system. We fail to understand its relevance to the septic installation. In order to resolve this situation, we have retained the services of Mr Steven Eriksen of Norse Environmental Services Inc. In the meantime, at your earliest convenience, we would appreciate a letter from your department indicating exactly what is required in order to issue us a Certificate of Compliance for our septic installation. We are grateful for the assistance given by your department to date towards resolving this matter, and we would like to minimize any further delay and expenses. Sincer y, r 1 Willis Hendley Rubina Hendley Town of North Andover Office of the Conservation Department Community Development and Services Division Julie Parrino Conservation Administrator August 13, 2002 Willis & Rebena Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 RE: Lot 2 Cricket Lane DEP 242-904 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hendley: 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Telephone (978) 688-9530 Fax (978) 688-9542 I have reviewed the As -Built plan prepared by Diversified Civil Engineering dated June 25, 2002 for you property located at Lot 2 Cricket Lane. According to the As -Built Pian, it appears lot development has been completed in substantial conformance to the approved plans. I am also in receipt of a letter from Norse Environmental proposing minor landscaping activity near and along the detention pond slopes. I have reviewed the letter and sketch plan and hereby authorize the proposed activities. Please keep in mind no changes to the shape, size, or topography of the detention pond may result from landscaping activities. In addition, landscaping activities may not impede water flow or infiltration through the basin. Disturbance to the stabilized slopes must be kept to a minimum to reduce siltation. Activities in the buffer zone beyond those reviewed and approved by my Department must be submitted for approval. If you have any questions, Julie free to contact me. i Administrator CC: NACC Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director Bob Beshara, DPW Clay Mitchell, Interim Town Planner Steve Eriksen, Norse Environmental BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 Sandra Starr Health Director Town of North Andover Health Dept 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Delivered by hand on Aug 15, 2002 Dear Ms Starr, RE: Septic system at Lot 2, 101 Cricket Lane Oaje_4 r/O Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Thursday August 15, 2002 We enclose a copy of the As -Built of Subsurface Disposal System, prepared by Merrimack Engineering, together with an incomplete Installation Certification for this property. Sincerely, q r, Rubina Hendley pp Willis Hendley TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSTALLATION CERTIFICATION The undersigned hereby certify that the Sewage Disposal System V) constructed; ( ) repaired: by located at (Qj CR1CK.f-t-1 (ScAae►UiI ,J (.,o -Z> was installed in conformance with the North Andover Board of Health approved plan, System Design Permit # , dated , with an approved design flow of 4VO gallons per day. The materials used were in conformance with those specified on the approved plan; the system was installed in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 15.000, Title 5 and local regulations, and the final grading agrees substantially with the approved plan. All work is accurately represented on the As -built which has been submitted to the Board of Health. , Bed inspection date: _L/ d Final inspection date: 11h 4wo Installer: Engineer Representative Engineer Representative LicA Date: Design Engineer: cr. _ �ticI 54 Date:. Town of North Andover Office of the Conservation Department Community Development and Services Division Health Department 27 Charles Street Sandra Starr North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Health Director MEMORANDUM TO: Mike McGuire, Building Inspector FROM: Brian J. LaGrasse, Health Inspector RE: 101 Cricket Lane DATE: August 8, 2002 Telephone (978) 688-9540 Fax(978)688-9542 I am sending you this memo in regards to the septic system located at the aforementioned address. The septic system does not have a Certificate of Compliance and the property should not be given an occupancy permit at this time. Feel free to contact me at anytime if you have any questions or would like additional information. Pn aGrasse 6- Health Inspector cc: Sandra Starr, Health Director Board of Health File BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 F�;Y rt CF r�0RTH 0„ ?C,. 80AftE? OF HfJd ARCO Excavator's Inc. --�-�, 2 P.O. Box 70 �`' "1 Kingston, NH 03848 -� -- (978) 685-5113 i �z North Andover Health Department Sandra Starr, Health Director 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01945 RE: Lot 2 Cricket Lane Dear Sandy, This letter is a follow up to a conversation I had with your inspector, Brian LaGrasse, on Tuesday, April 16, 2002, in regards to the septic installation permit issued to me for Lot 2 Cricket Lane. As you may be aware this permit was issued some time ago. The issue date was actually 5/24/00. What you may not be aware of is that the lot was sold before I was able to complete the final grading on the septic system. Since the new owners purchased the property they have hired other contractors to regrade and landscape the site. They have made noticeable grade changes including a stone retaining wall. Today while I was working on Cricket Lane I personally observed Wickson Inc. driving a large rubber tire backhoe directly over the system components. This occurred many times during the day. I informed Wickson of the potential damage to the system and my warnings did not result in any change in activity. This is what prompted my phone call to Brian Lagrasse. In addition to my concern for the septic system I wanted you to know the following: 1) ARCO is not currently doing the work on this site 2) I will not sign off on the certificate of compliance for this system 3) I do not feel that any future liability of the function of this system should lie upon ARCO Excavator's Inc or myself. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Sincerely, William Sawyer, President ARCO Excavator's Inc. M W r_ 2 0 E U U "J LL QI� ui ..� 'Q J N Q \ ro� W n O Z �\ o U ~ QCA 3 i m LUtA rz Z z a Z U? O _ N b �. a a x U Ln ro 1— V > o J = V Q w a i Lu > = N O c O 0 Z, Q Q U D N � L a� L �le/ Q S Li O to wm 3 o C ° 0 U J ° C Q o O CL b ro bo E "' T � •D T N Z - vER �Frt t C Ll ._. N O `�1 � to r � , •, Y r.+ a•.. ro (A i ;. F/ ' y J 00 rct h,MOy rtrtrt Q (n Ck- N U - awe y 2 3. 4. C INSTALLER PROJECT MANAGEMENT OBLIGATIONS As the North Andover licensed installer for the construction of the septic system for the property atm yet relative to the application of %,✓- /�cxm� �(' dated /I%U4 V for plans by P e /'�iO(K, and dated / -/3 Q with revisions dated 3 -Y- y I understand and agree to the following obligations for management of this project: As the installer I am obligated to call for any and all inspections. If homeowner, contractor, project manger, or any other person not associated with my company schedules an inspection and the system is not ready then item two shall be applicable . As the installer I am required to have the necessary work completed prior to the applicable inspections as indicated below. I understand that requesting an inspection,, without completion of the items in accordance with Title 5 and the Board of Health Regulations may result in a $50.00 fine being levied against my company. a) Bottom of Bed — generally first inspection unless there is a retaining wall which should be done first. installer must request the inspection but does not have to be present. b) Final inspection — Engineer must first do their inspection for elevations, ties, etc. As -built or verbal OK from engineer must be submitted to BOH, after which installer calls for inspection time. Installer must be present for this inspection. With pump system all electrical work must be ready and able to cause pamp to work and alarm to function. c) Final Grade — Installer must request inspection when all grading is complete. Does not have to be on site. !f As the installer I understand that persons or companies not associated with my company may not perform the work required by my company to complete the installation of the system identified in the attached application for installation. I further understand that work by others unlicensed to install septic systems in North Andover can constitute reasons for denial of the system, and/or revocation or suspension of my license in the Town of North Andover plus significant fines to all persons involved. As the Installer I understand that I must be on site during the performance of the following construction steps: a) Determination that the proper elevation of the excavation has been reached b) Inspection of the sand and stone to be used. c) Final inspection by Board of ]Health staff. d) Installation of tank, D -box, pipes, stone, vent, pump chamber, retaining wall and other components. 5. As the installer I understand that I am solely responsible for the installation of the system as per the approved plans. No instructions by the homeowner, general contractor, or any other persons shall absolve me of this obligation. Undersigned Licensed Septic Installer - Date: tl MAY 2 4 q6 APPLICATION FOR DISPOSAL WORKS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT P DATE CURRENT INSTALLER'S LICENSE9� LOCATION: 7— LICENSED INSTALLER:__�l1l/�l SIGNATTIRE: TELEPHONE,S", 57//3 CHECK ONE: REPAIR: NEW CONSTRUCTION: IF NEW CONSTUCTION, PLEASE ATTACH FOUNDATION AS -BUILT. Administrative Use Only 575.00 Fee Attached? Yes Nn Foundation As -Built? Yes No Floor Plans? Yes V/ No Approval Date: /"// MIAY 2 4 FO\\lRM U -.LOT' RELEASE FORM' INSTRUCTIONS: This form is used to verify that all necessary approvals/permits from - Boards and Departments having jurisdiction have been obtained. This does not relieve the applicant and/or landowner from compliance with any applicable or requirements. * APPLICANT FILLS OUT THIS SECTION***************�`** y` APPLICANT Ltr�CKt�c e�z�tSw� l�l.G LOCATION: Assessor's Map Number �0� �► SUBDIVISION STREET Cv-"cVc N L 5,,e PHONE 11 g - 6e _y PARCEL �— LOT (S) ST. NUMBER /Q/ ********** OFFIC lAL USE RECOMMENDA T IONS OF TOWN AGENTS: CONSERVATION ADMINISTRATOR DATE APPROVED DATE REJECTED COMMENTS TOWN PLANNER DATE APPROVED DATE REJECTED COMMENTS FOOD INSPECTOR -HEALTH S OR -HEALTH DATE APPROVED DATE REJECTED DATE APPROVED DATE REJECTED COMMENTS PUBLIC WORKS - SEvVERPNATER CONNECTIONS DRIVEWAY PERMIT FIRE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED BY BUILDING iNSIPECTCR Revised 9107 jm - V , k 4"ciA DATE arc- � WILLIAM J. SCOTT Director (978)688-9531 Iwooe—ll Town of North Andover _ , 40RTil OFFICE OF 3� ° �, ° •6�° L COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES x 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 March 25, 1999 Les Godin Merrimack Engineering 66 Park Street Andover, MA 01810 Re: Lots 1-10 Cricket Lane, North Andover Fax(978)688-9542 Dear Sir: This letter will serve as your notification that the proposed septic plans for the lots specified above have been approved for dwellings with a maximum of nine (9) rooms. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, .z < <- Sandra Starr, Administrator SS/gb cc: Copley Development BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 own of North Andover, Massachusetts Form No. s NORT1y BOARD OF HEALTH 19�O F A A DESIGN APPROVAL FOR HUS SOIL SOIL ABSORPTION SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM Applicant—_S_& /1,&/ L fM 72C Test No. Site LocationL-6T a Reference Plans and Sp DA Permission is granted for an individual soil absorption sewage disposal system to be installed in accordance with regulations of Board of Health. CFFAIRM ,BOARD OF HEALTH Fee *A-5-- Site System Permit No. A�(/- S1. ,TIC PLAN SUBMITTAL 1 -RM A404r-19 LOCATION: Z O- r 7- C LC G t:�c� NEW PLANS: YES $125.00/Plan REVISED PLANS: YES $ 60.00/Plan SITE EVALUATION FORMS INCLUDED: YES DATE:— I ` DESIGN ENGINEER: M A 616 E�14 ( "450 lt�i DATE TO CONSULTANT: *If you want your plans expedited, please submit four plans and included a stamped envelope with the correct amount of postage to mail plans to Port Engineering. When the submission is all in place, route to the Health Secretary. � ;C PLAN SUBMITTAL FGA B SEPVI .._. LOCATION: NEW PLANS:i S� $125.00/Plan REVISED PLANS: YES $ 60.00/Plan SITE EVALUATION FORMS INCLUDED: YES NO (.ori Fi c j. f DATE: I^19_R� DESIGN ENGINEER: HCH 1 rRR c K'_ �u C DATE TO CONSULTANT: g &/ *If you want your plans expedited, please submit four plans and included a stamped envelope with the correct amount of postage to mail plans to Port Engineering. When the submission is all in place, route to the Health Secretary. Town of North Andover � OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES 27 Charles Street WILLIAM J. SCOTT North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Director (978)688-9531 February 25, 1999 Les Godin Merrimack Engineering 66 Park Street Andover, MA 01810 RE: Lots 1-10 Cricket Lane Dear Mr. Godin: ,.V4 4 ey— X " Fax (978) 688-9542 This is to inform you that the plans for the septic systems proposed for the subdivision of Walnut Ridge have been disapproved for the following reasons- • The septic tank detail does not show the inlet tee extending a minimum of 10 inches below the flow line, nor that there needs to be a 3 inch space above the tees. (3 10 CMR 15.227(6) and 15.227(4)). • There are no benchmarks shown within 75 feet of the septic systems. (3 10 CMR 15.220(q)). In addition, for Lot 1: • Abutters' names are not shown. (NA 8.02j) • Design specifications for the proposed retaining wall are missing. (310 CMR 15.255(2)). For Lot 3: • The high water alarm for the pump chamber is not specified as to be located in the house. (3 10 CMR 15.231(9)) • Slope easement is required from Lot 4. (310 CMR 15.255(2)) • The slope of the two lower trenches will be in excess of 8% and at minimum a baffle is required to decrease the velocity. (3 10 CMR 15.232(3)(a)) Please consider a velocity reducer at the high end of the two lower trenches. BOARD OF\APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 Lot 4: • Please note that the septic tank is drafted incorrectly. Lot 5 and Lot 6: • Scale of the Plan view is not shown. Lot 7: • The scale of the Plan view is not shown. • Pump Note #4 neglects to state that the high water alarm is to be located in the house. (3 10 CMR 15.231(9)). Lot 8: • The estimated seasonal high water elevation -has not been adjusted to the highest existing grade. This results in the leaching area being less than 4 feet to groundwater. (3 10 CMR 15.212 Ab). Lot 9: • Slope easement required from Lot 10. (3 10 CMR 15.255(2)) • Slope to d -box exceeds 8%, therefore, at minimum, a baffle is required. (3 10 CMR 15.232(3)(a)) Lot 10: • Fill around system runs to property line of abutter. Toe of slope required to be 5 feet off the lot line. (3 10 CMR 15.255(2)) • Trenches # 1 and # 1 do not show 4 foot separation to groundwater. (3 10 CMR 15.212 a & b). Please feel free to call the Health Office with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Sandra Starr, R.S. Health Administrator Cc: W. Scott File Feb -09-99 10:15A Paul�'a�. Turbide, PE/PLS February 9, 1999 Sandra Starr ATOrµa,%sdlo»n va Beard of PiltL dT1riCt o vip►i Orf l;irrnmunity Development and Sen i e5 30 SchW1 St. North Andover, MA 018 5 RE: Title V review for Lot 2 Cricket Lane Dear Sandra, 508-465-0313 C 1 P-05 4Aol— 4�; Enclosed find the "Checklist for North Andover Septic System Plans" for the above- mentioned site. The following is a list of all. the `Problem' areas and deficiencies Port • sill Civ"' 247(22) shales that fof a Yt niaiurn of T' oaf ii i' /2 ilrwh stu= isto, be placed on the top of the leaching bed. The plan design calls fvr a layer of fitter fabric to be laid on top this stone. T-aere is no regulation that II could find Thai allows filter fabric to be laid over the peastone, and therefore 1 would recommend that the fitter fabric be removed from the design. • The septic tank detail should show that the inlet tee is to extend a minimum of 10 inches below the -low line (227(6)), and that there is to be a 3 -inch air space above the inlet and outlet tees (227(4)). * Note 13 rages thot bencM--narks are to be fl Ced v:rithin 75 feet of the disposal area before constli7i acni. n Cii�titiif➢ii ui 2tli}"}CGr?t iii ia�aiS iivS4 ar. rh^"�'1 bP +13�* t�e benchmark will be set as noted. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely Carlton A brown, P>F/PCS Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors One Harris Sirrei Nesvburygnrt. MA 01950 (978) 465-8594 FORM 11 - 50IL EVALUATOR FORM Page 1 r� No ....................................... � l&AOQ5 iiEALT EW Commonwealth of Massachusetts WoZT-H ANDovER , Massachusetts 261999 Performed By: .... W.1..1.L1A-M........ AV.-FiZ.IM-Si�i:S................ Witnessed ByH:I1:OA......SRf� L,=,j= Addtas or Lai Cr-te.k�eT LAW '=-. I New construction I?r Repair ❑ Office Review oww'. ram. Address, aW 1 I SCJ "PLO--( oe L v rs Tekphone HI! H V e. I -J , M A - 01 e4y Published Soil Survey Available: No. ❑ Yes 02( Year Published ...I.QP.).. Publication Scale .I.•..t5;�n Soil Map Unit . .b�. Drainage Class .... ....... Soil Limitations ...:..Ma0 W A-[- ..................................................... ntTo.> Surficial Geologic Report Available: No ❑ Yes ❑ Year Published ...".. Publication Scale GeologicMaterial (Map Unit) ............. -.......................................................................................................................................... Landform .................. ................:....................................................... ........................................................................................................................ Flood Insurance Rate Map: 25??ag6 000 Co G 9 Coz:'01(f Above 500Y ear flood boundary No ElYes �( Within 500 year flood boundary No Yes ❑ WithinY 100 year flood boundary No Yes El Wetland Area: National Wetland Inventory Map (map unit) ....... 1 ...... sltflr ..................... Wetlands Conservancy Program Map (map unit)..................................................................................I................. Current Water Resource Conditions (USGS): Month 5r Range : Above Normal ❑ pormal I Below Normal ❑ Rtssume Other References Reviewed: V S 6.<-; . MAPS — lv� I ?14 - FORM 11 ��Offi EVALUATOR FORM Page 2 On-site Review Deep Hole Number 12SAIC Date: f?'j.q-q— Weather .�H`f M'S . ......... Location (identify on site plan) .....�Wr ... .... ....... ....... P.4AI.,J ................................................ Land Use Slope Surface Stones .... . H.- A. -h .. 4 - Y- ....................................................... Vegetation.... W-0 D.EFZ ....................................................................................................... I .......................................................................................... Landform...... NP-IZAJ+4......................................................................................................................................................................... ...................... Positionon landscape (sketch.on the back) ......................................................................................................................................................... Distances from: Open Water Body 1.004188t Drainage way 100---t feet Possible Wet Area I-Xt feet Property Line .....1.0...+... feet Drinking Water Well../.00t feet Other ............. . ...................... DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Surface (Inches) Soil Horizon Soil Texture (USDA) Soil Color (Munsell) Soil Mottling Other (Structure, Stones, Boul0ers, Consistency, % Gravel) S. L -7- s,j V, Al 64 901\4 2, S'j 611 1 W/o F,2vL04SJRS "a 4 I*V) P S;. Z, Sxt 4,1 <Fl "a 6 CAV) 5'-14-13 eA FAV. i- & j ((-A - 6 c4u) Parent Material (geologic) .1-.....I I.. -.L ................................................... Depth to Bedrock: ...WA...........:. per3th to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: Weeping from Pit Face: NIX... Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: FORM 11 SOIL EVALUATOR FORM Page 3 Determination for Seasonal —High Water Table Method Used: ..._— ❑ Depth observed standing in observation hole inches ❑ D pth weeping from side of observation hole inches Depth to soil mottles..3 inches ❑ Ground water adjustment.. 7feet Index Well Number Reading Date ................... Index well level ................... Adjustment factor .7-_ Adjusted ground water level_ .......'...— ............................ Death of Naturally Occurring Pervious Material Does at least four feet of naturally occurring pervious material exist in all areas observed throughout the area proposed for the soil absorption system? If not, what is the depth of naturally occurring pervious material? Certification I certify that on �'�''`!'Co (date) I have passed the examination approved by the Department of Environmental Protection and that the above analysis was performed by me consistent with the required training, expertise and experience described in 310 CMR 15.017. Signature&,�;,p � Date 2. FORN1'.r2- PERCOLATION TEST COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Woel+t AQWVi!M Massachusetts f Site Passed LJ Site Failed El I rz� x ' ........................ ............................ .................................................. . I .......................... ....................... , . d Performed By: Witnessed By: !' L) L-A Q - E—O' V– � Comments: . ... .. .. ....... ............... Percolation Test Date: Time:� .... ........... Observation Hole # Depth of Perc ZZ -67 Start Pre-soak End Pre-soak 3_7 Z US Time at 12" Time at 9" '2-, -7 Time at 6" Time (9"-6") 3 7, M Rate . Min./Inch Hwhki f Site Passed LJ Site Failed El I rz� x ' ........................ ............................ .................................................. . I .......................... ....................... , . d Performed By: Witnessed By: !' L) L-A Q - E—O' V– � Comments: . ... .. .. ....... ............... I' - (/41/Z- -?re /,O� it IFf — - - _ kXf- Ccr����C �/��U ��JP✓ - �y NOI/;,,�CrIQ_ _ _ _ ,j� __ __ -oolAj �y "Oase. 21 VI- o { #� sit low oil- OVA ti lly AS WO i i� its ing ^..,. _♦ { -_ p. . :.eon - - ZA ;P6�4�A-: BUILDING TIES INVERT FI FVATinKiq BUILDING CORNER = 199.19 A B SEPTIC TANK DIST, BOX IN 198.16 33' 31.4' DIST. BOX — 197.49 END LEACH LINE #2 32 38.7' CORN. LEACH FIELD #1 20.7 52.8 CORN. LEACH FIELD #2 49.3' 72.2' CORN. LEACH FIELD #3 74.5' 54.0' CORN. LEACH FIELD #4 60. 5.5' 0 N J V31 fn GO OA) 1 J m Q / rn O I rn cD Ln ca 0 / af / I� I� 00 00 I 133 , Il 2 rO 4" PIPE ® FDTN. = 199.19 SEPTIC TANK IN = 198.50 SEPTIC TANK OUT = 198.22 DIST, BOX IN 198.16 DIST. BOX OUT = 198.01 END LEACH LINE #1 — 197.49 END LEACH LINE #2 = 197.48 1 5o G G 1 GG�G� P��O F�0�,o 1 1 1 1 1 _�3 o -'Lo 02 . 1 0 1 1 li 38.31' 75.00' , NOTE: To PLAN & CERTIFICATION IS NOT A W RANTY OF THE SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL S TEM. IT IS A RECORD OF THE LOCATION ND ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM COMPONENTS. K \ G1g \ REVISIONS DATE CHANGED NAME PLAN WAS PREPARED FOR 8/13/02 � X202' •sem, k .1 NL-I'mNR" .0'w 70 °s L I !L G) y os AS—BUILT OF SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM LOCATED IN NORTH ANDOVER, AS PREPARED FOR WILLIS & RUBINA 105 ROLLING RIDGE LANE METHUEN, MA. 01844 MA. HENDLEY m SCALE: 1"=20' DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION LOT #2 101 CRICKET LANE CRICKET LANE MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 66 PARK STREET • ANDOV.?, MASSACHUSETTS 01810 TEL (978) 475-3555 • FAX (978) 475-1448 �t II 4 Ad 565 Turnpike Street Suite 61 �- Concepts North Andover, MA 01845 i N� 27 912-3 u Ph: (978) 681-8 8 R )80 www.adconceptsinc.com